Waste Management: Recycling

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have plans to review domestic waste recycling to simplify the procedure for users, and to take account of the particular issues regarding the classification of recycling in inner cities.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Government do not tell local authorities how to carry out household waste collections. Local authorities should provide a convenient and practical waste service to residents, accounting for local circumstances. As recycling schemes become more mature, good practice will spread, leading to collection arrangements which are better understood by the public and businesses alike.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that there is a major problem in that each local authority seems to be in the hands of its contractors, whereas if there were a national list, everyone would be obliged to recycle everything on it? Is he also aware that the vast majority of waste in the Cities of London and Westminster is commercial but that the local authorities get no credit whatever for it because it is not classified as domestic waste? In Westminster, 65 per cent of the waste is commercial and it is collected very conscientiously. Is that not a disadvantage for those cities and inner-city areas?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not quite follow the noble Baroness. Those local authorities do not get any credit for commercial waste because they get money for it, whereas they have a duty to provide a collection scheme for domestic waste under the council tax system. The two are treated separately and that is quite normal. This matter is best left to local authorities. They have national and international frameworks and from April they will have three targets. Decisions on how and when to collect, the schemes that they operate and how they dispose of the waste are best left to them. They are much better placed to make these decisions than is the man from Whitehall telling them exactly what to put on the list.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, local civic community sites are an important part of local recycling but many of them operate quite bureaucratically. That is very frustrating for the public, who are just trying to do the responsible thing. Have the Government commissioned any research into best practice and, if not, will they consider doing so? Although this matter is best left to local choice, it is good to share best practice.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, although I am unaware of bureaucratic difficulties at the sites. I recommend the Wigmore site in Gloucestershire—I use it myself—as an absolute model. In the past, it has won awards for recycling the maximum amount and I have never noticed any excessive bureaucracy. It is true that inner-city, more concentrated areas—perhaps in some of the London boroughs—are particularly keen to ensure that traders and commercial operators do not abuse the sites because they are essentially for domestic residents, and that may be where a touch of bureaucracy comes in.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many local authorities have extremely good recycling schemes, including in Essex, where I live? However, does he agree that an enormous amount of waste is still going to landfill and that manufacturers and producers need to get much more clearly in their minds the necessity of reducing packaging and increasing the amount available for recycling? What are the Government doing to encourage that?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I congratulate Essex on having a good plug this afternoon. There has been a massive reduction in packaging waste in the past 10 years. The recycling rate for packaging waste has increased from 27 per cent in 1997 to 56 per cent in 2006. There have been increases for UK business targets. The announcement on 11 February this year, which came into force following consultation just last week on 14 March, provided a whole new list, particularly for packaging waste and its recovery, which annoys people immensely. Business has woken up to the fact that there is money in what people used to call waste. It should not be called waste; it is an asset.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, it is pleasant indeed to hear Conservative authorities being praised by the Minister. We on this side are not complacent because this is a major issue. The waste strategy for 2007 for England promised a Defra-led waste strategy board and waste stakeholders groups. How often have they met and are the minutes publicly available? In short, what is being done to set up those bodies and what are they doing?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, to be honest, I do not have any information on that. I hope that the answer is very little. I hope that we are not having lots of meetings in Whitehall about things that everyone is quite clear about from the legislation that has been passed. I am not here to make petty party points: I had forgotten who ran Gloucestershire, but I know who runs Essex. I shall check on this and contact the noble Lord later today.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his normal sunny nature may be leading him to be a little overoptimistic about people accepting with pleasure the present system? At the moment, some postcodes have their household rubbish collected every week and many others have collections only once a fortnight. There is much concern about that. Although the noble Lord is quite right about it being a local matter perhaps, when advice is given, it could involve more equal treatment between postcodes.

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, the Government are not ordering local authorities to collect at any particular rate. It depends on what is best for them. We shall pilot some schemes to give them even more flexibility. I invite all noble Lords—the Bill team will not thank me for this—to turn up tomorrow afternoon for the Report stage of the Climate Change Bill, on which we have reached the part dealing with waste. It provides for legislation to set up five pilots to give local authorities more choice and flexibility about the way in which they organise their affairs. Uniformity will not work, simply because of the nature of society and the housing structure in the country.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, how can we meet our climate change targets if the man from Whitehall has very little influence?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the influence is there in setting the framework for local government, setting new targets and encouraging it not to use landfill simply because it is more expensive, as has been happening. That is what the man from Whitehall can do. What the man from Whitehall should not do is say, "You will collect this particular range of recyclables on such a day". It is much better for local authorities to judge the local circumstances and then to deliver against the national targets.

Gift Aid

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will bring forward proposals for the simplification of the gift aid scheme before 5 April.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Budget announced a package of measures in response to the consultation on gift aid. The package included payment of gift aid at a transitional rate of 22 per cent for three years. It also included major reform of the auditing process, redesign of guidance, a programme to bring additional small charities into gift aid and a number of other administrative changes to the scheme.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. On behalf of the churches, I thank the Chancellor for giving three years of transitional relief on gift aid claims. We realise the vital importance of using that transitional period to up the number of donors signing gift aid forms. Does the Minister agree that the limited simplification measures still leave a complex business for church and charity treasurers, few of whom are accountants and fewer still tax specialists? Will the Minister use his best endeavours to encourage his right honourable friend the Chancellor to continue to listen to the representations of the sector and, above all, to be really bold in taking steps to simplify the scheme still further?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his kind remarks about progress made thus far. The Treasury is aware that any problem which it solves merely gives rise to increased demands from any quarter—certainly from a meritorious one like this. We are aware that more needs to be done and we will certainly remain open to representations on improvements to gift aid. However, I am grateful that progress made in the Budget has been appreciated, particularly by the churches and others who are responsible for small donors.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Government consider making all donations to registered charities claimable against income tax and tax generally, as I understand happens in the United States of America?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a further step. We received representations on that point and will look at the issue further. Certainly, those who pay higher rates of tax generally want to make their contribution to charity. However, these issues are not simple. It is not easy to produce reforms which do not lead us into further legislation. Thereby hang many difficulties, but the intention is certainly to improve the gift aid scheme.

Lord Newby: My Lords, in addition to the changes on gift aid, the Budget documentation said that the Government continue to support payroll giving. Given the size of the public sector, can the Government take more active steps to encourage payroll giving within its own bailiwick, starting with the Civil Service?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, payroll giving is an increasing feature, as the noble Lord will recognise. How such an operation is to be conducted is for agreement between staff and employers. We are eager to encourage the development of payroll giving, and the Civil Service makes its contribution.

Lord Sewel: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the Government on making transitional relief available for the next three years. However, I suggest that this measure is given a greater degree of publicity. I was at a meeting over the weekend where there was, to put it kindly, a degree of confusion.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, some of the issues are complex, but the basic one to which my noble friend alludes, and what the Government are guaranteeing, is that charities will continue to receive the relief they would have got under 22p in the pound, despite the fact that there has been a cut in income tax. It is important that we get this message across. The charities benefit from this, too, and I am sure that they are eager to spread the good news.

Roads: Satellite Navigation Systems

Viscount Tenby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they plan to regulate information made available to road users by providers of satellite navigation systems.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, legislation on this subject in 1989 and 1990 required system providers to apply for a licence prior to marketing certain subsets of route guidance/sat-nav devices. The Government are currently carrying out a review of this legislation.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister; I hope I am not being too euphoric about the sympathetic Answer he has given. Is he aware of the impact that unregulated information from satellite navigation systems is having on predominantly rural communities? Whole villages are being cut off for days on end by juggernauts stuck in lanes; pieces are being taken out of buildings; and there is heavy use of minor roads, on surfaces which are not intended for such use. Accordingly, would the Minister, as a first step, undertake to talk to the providers of these systems—I believe they are only few in number—with a view to getting them to introduce at least some relevant information on the roads, such as weight and size limits, and whether a route is suitable for lorries at all?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the department is in continuous discussion with the providers on the subjects that the noble Viscount described. It is for that reason that we intend to bring forward the fruits of our consultation and some proposals about how we can secure better management of sat-nav systems. There are now some very sophisticated systems on the market. I was looking at one the other day called BridgeX, which is a points of interest database for use with the popular TomTom, Garmin and Navman satellite navigation units. It is a specialist product targeted at trucks, articulated lorries and so on, where there can be particular problems, as the noble Viscount pointed out.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, do all ministerial cars carry sat-navs?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: ot all of them, my Lords. We rely in some measure on the intelligence of our drivers, which is very good.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, further to the noble Viscount's Question, can the Minister give us any indication of how many safety incidents occur each year because of the misrouting of vehicles or wrong routes? Why have the Government not acted earlier, as they completed their consultation about 15 months ago? It might have been appropriate to have started some new legislation or thoughts on it earlier.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the consultation was launched in October 2006 and was extensive. We wanted to take the views of local authorities, which are very important, the providers, the market and so on. We had a lot of responses. We are very close to the point of publication. The trouble with this field is that because technology is constantly changing and improving, it is hard to legislate and regulate to keep ahead of that. The approach we have adopted—trying to encourage and work with the industry—is very advisable.
	The noble Lord asked a specific question about how many of the incidents that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred to occur annually. We conducted a survey of some 40 local authorities and discovered that there were not very many of these incidents, but those that there are are the ones we read about in the newspapers. They are very troubling, but fortunately most people make good use of sat-nav systems and follow the road signs as well.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, as the Minister knows, a lot of these systems are used by foreign lorry drivers, many of whom cannot read road signs. I do not know whether these systems will come within the control of the new legislation that the Government are proposing. The Government seem to be impotent in dealing with breaches of the lorry regulations in this country, particularly by foreign drivers, and in dealing with sat-nav navigation systems. In fact, sometimes one wonders whether they have given up on the road haulage sector. Can the Minister give us some reassurance about urgency and about getting something done rather than having constant consultation?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I dispute the notion that we are complacent or slow in dealing with this. That is far from the case. If the noble Lord talked to his European colleagues on this he would find that we led the way in ensuring that we have European Union direction because the vast majority of trucks and lorries coming here with foreign drivers are from Europe. The most important things are to get Europe-wide agreement on these systems and to ensure that European systems accurately reflect the latest road conditions on our roads. We have been putting a lot of effort into those important factors. We are not complacent on this. It is a complex issue and the legislation is hard to manage because of technology. We are taking important steps to ensure that providers improve the quality of their product.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a sat-nav system placed inside the vehicle in the swept area of the windscreen wipers is an automatic MOT failure? Is he also aware that the construction and use regulation relating to television sets being visible from the front of the car could now apply to certain sat-nav systems and to mobile phones that can show videos?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have the detailed knowledge that my noble friend evidently has on these things. I will now undertake even more research so that my knowledge of such things is greater than it is this afternoon. I do know that there are some new developments with sat-navs that would make them work rather better by providing a less distracting visual for drivers who rely on them.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, following on from what the Minister has said, does he agree that we are seeing only the first generation of sat-nav systems and that later ones will be much more sophisticated? To aid that, are comprehensive data available on speed limits for sat-nav manufacturers so that they can produce a device that will not allow motorists inadvertently to speed?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think some databases are available that advise the provider companies of the latest information on speeds. Ordnance Survey in particular provides a lot of information on the changing nature of road networks, because clearly the relationship between Ordnance Survey and sat-nav providers is very important. Some sat-nav systems are now so sophisticated that, in the course of the journey, they update the information on their systems to advise drivers of best possible routes.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Minister is a keen runner, as I understand from reading the recent House magazine, and as we are on a lighter note here, would it not be right for someone in the Chamber to congratulate Wales on its Grand Slam win?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this briefing just does not cover rugby, but I am more than happy from the Front Bench to congratulate Wales on its terrific rugby achievements.

National Insurance

Lord Skelmersdale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many national insurance numbers are currently in use.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, there are currently 76.8 million national insurance number accounts on the customer information system, of which 55.1 million are active.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. The Minister will be aware that, between January 2004 and April 2007, 896,170 national insurance numbers were issued to non-EU citizens. However, excluding the first quarter of 2007, for which figures are not yet available, only 270,700 work permits were issued. They cannot all be students, so why the discrepancy of around half a million?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I do not recognise the latter figure, but we should understand that there has been a significant increase in recent years in national insurance number registrations for foreign nationals. Those figures represent only inflows; they do not represent outflows—people who have left the UK and are no longer here, working or otherwise. I should also say that the existence of a national insurance number does not give anyone the right to access benefits and indeed does not represent a right to work in the UK.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the number of NINOs allocated to overseas nationals is in the public domain on the DWP website. The figures show that, in the past few years, the proportion of people who have recently registered their national insurance numbers and who claim out-of-work benefits has declined from something like 11 per cent in 2000 to 3 per cent in the past two years. Does that not show that the foreign nationals are making a very important contribution to the British economy, which has enabled us to outstrip the rest of Europe?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The proportion of foreign nationals who access the benefits system is small and, as he said, has declined in recent years. We should recognise that economic migration has significantly benefited the UK economy. Currently, something like 7 per cent to 8 per cent of those in employment are foreign nationals, but we know that growth has been boosted because we now have the lowest unemployment for 30 years and the highest employment for about the same period.

Baroness Warsi: My Lords, while acknowledging that foreign nationals make a contribution to the British economy, surely the Minister must accept that those foreign nationals have to be legal. What is the discrepancy between national insurance numbers issued to foreign nationals who are legal in this country and those issued to foreign nationals who are illegal?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, this Question is about the national insurance database, which is not focused on whether someone is legal in this country; other systems are focused on dealing with that. If that were not the case, there would have to be arrangements whereby, every time someone left the UK, they would have to be deleted from the system, which would open up opportunities for significant fraud. The national insurance database issues unique identifying numbers, so that we can tell what an individual's contribution record has been over the relevant years. That is the purpose of the database. Robust changes have been made to ensure that, when national insurance numbers are issued, illegal immigration is screened out. Since 2006, a national insurance number has been issued for someone seeking employment only when they have the right to work. That is the right task for the national insurance process, not the broader task.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that this shows how porous the system is? Will he confirm that employers are still allowed to create temporary numbers for payroll purposes for new employees who are not in possession of a P45 or similar? Does that not present a considerable loophole? What safeguards exist to ensure that no one can be issued with more than one number as they change jobs?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, robust processes are in place, which is why the number on the database is higher than the number of adults currently in the UK. Once someone is on the system, they are not taken off, which is a key way of preventing fraud. The DWP does not support the issuing of temporary national insurance numbers and does not issue them. In certain circumstances, if people reach employment before a national insurance number has been allocated to them, the employer will use a basis to identify those individuals until the national insurance number is issued. Only one national insurance number is issued to each individual. In the unlikely event of duplication, one would be removed from the system. The process is for only one national insurance number for each individual.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, surely it is not deleting the redundant numbers, rather than deleting them, that gives scope for fraud.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: I disagree, my Lords. Another key reason for holding numbers on the system is that, when people have died, there may be opportunities for the survivor's partner to access benefits on the basis of the contribution records of the deceased person.

Business

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, with the permission of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement entitled "European Council Meeting" at a convenient point after 3.30 pm.

Business of the House: Standing Order 47

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Wednesday 19 March to allow the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

Report received.
	Clause 2 [Restrictions on arrangements under section 1]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) A local authority must not enter into arrangements under section 1 until it has discharged all of its duties, responsibilities and liabilities under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246)."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I apologise for bringing this amendment back to the House, but on reading the Minister's answer last time, one issue remains which we would like to probe further. In his reply in Grand Committee, the Minister made it clear that TUPE regulations would apply to groups of social workers transferred from local authority employment to private social work practices. He went on to say:
	"The relevant staff are those assigned by the local authority to the functions that will be discharged by the provider of social work services".—[Official Report, 8/1/08; col. GC 299.]
	This implies that whether staff are transferred is a decision for the local authority, but it is also clear from our discussions about social work practices that the Government clearly wish to see such practices being started up by private individuals or companies recruiting staff not necessarily by transferring them from the particular local authority, but from outside.
	It is difficult to see how local authorities can do this without breaching their obligations under TUPE. If a local authority outsources social work functions, TUPE automatically applies. Staff currently employed to carry out functions which are to be outsourced must be offered the chance to transfer, and if they transfer, TUPE applies. It is only if they object to the transfer, when they are deemed to have resigned, that TUPE does not apply and no compensation is payable.
	I have three questions to put to the Minister. First, can he confirm that, for the pilots, these rules will apply and that where social work practices are established outside the ambit of the local authority, staff currently fulfilling the relevant functions would have the opportunity to transfer to the pilot and that TUPE would apply? Secondly, will TUPE continue to apply when the pilots cease if this model is extended more generally? Thirdly, what happens to staff who object to being transferred over to the pilot? Will they be deemed to have resigned and therefore forgo any compensation? Obviously these matters are of concern to staff who are likely to be affected by these changes, and it is important that both they and their employers, the local authorities, understand the full implications of these experiments before they are set up as pilots. I beg to move.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I can make it clear to the noble Baroness that local authorities must discharge all of their duties, responsibilities and liabilities under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations before entering into a contract with a provider of social work services. Those TUPE undertakings apply in the normal way. They will not be in any way different for social work practices from those in respect of other transfers of undertakings. On the issue of the willingness of staff to transfer, the duties which fall on the transferring employer under TUPE to inform and consult employee representatives will bite automatically on local authorities contracting with social work practices. I hope therefore that the kind of situation she envisages will not arise.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, it seems to me that this is not the same as other situations where TUPE applies, which is usually when the particular function has been permanently transferred out into another organisation. As I understand it, these practices are pilot schemes and therefore the pilot will come to an end. Can the Minister detail what protections will be in place to allow staff to return to the local authority at the end of the pilot?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, if they are staff who are initially covered by the TUPE protection and a further transfer takes place afterwards, they will be covered by that protection as well.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. It clarifies a situation about which some people have been worried. A slightly different situation arises when there is a pilot, as the noble Baroness mentioned, and this will reassure staff who may be affected as a result. I thank the Minister for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 [Effect of arrangements under section 1]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Clause 3, page 3, line 44, leave out "an act or omission of" and insert "anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to"

Lord Adonis: My Lords, these amendments are all of a minor nature and are intended to ensure technical clarity. Amendment No. 2 ensures that Clause 3(3) flows as a grammatical proposition and that its meaning is clear. Amendments Nos. 41, 45, 46, 53, 56, 59, 61 and 62 relate to the exercise of delegated powers and to the commencement of provisions in the Bill in relation to Wales. Amendment No. 49 is a minor drafting correction. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Piloting and expiry of arrangements under this Part]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Clause 6, page 5, line 20, at end insert—
	"(2A) Any local authority may, with the permission of the Secretary of State, introduce other new initiatives aimed at improving their discharge of the care functions described in section 1(2).
	(2B) Such initiatives shall benefit to an equal degree from any financial arrangements introduced during the piloting period."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6. This group of amendments seeks to ensure that other experiments in social care provisions for children are set up at the same time as the pilots for social work practices described in Clause 6, that any evaluation compares all these experiments and not only those relating to the social work practice pilots, and that the evaluation is robust and looks at a representative sample of experiments across different types of local authorities.
	We had a lengthy discussion of social work practices in Grand Committee and these issues were raised during that debate. Since that time, we have all had an opportunity to read the report from Professor le Grand, Consistent Care Matters, which proposes the setting up of these pilots. In his letter dated 11 January, the Minister reinforced the assurances that he gave the Grand Committee about the process of evaluation of pilots. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for these reassurances.
	Nevertheless, some doubts remain. It is not clear that establishing private practices of independent social workers, modelled on GP practices, will address the problems of freeing up social workers from bureaucracy and prevent the rapid turnover and changes of personnel on which all have remarked as being a bane within the service. Given the need for the local authorities to retain the role of the corporate parent, there are dangers that the proposals will fragment the child's journey through the care system and militate against the drive towards multidisciplinary teams bridging the areas of health, social services and education. As Professor le Grand remarks in his report, better leadership and leadership structures within the local authority can lead, and have been demonstrated to lead, to considerable improvements in performance and practice among local authorities.
	It is for this reason that we put emphasis on the need to test out different models rather than only one model before making decisions on what does or does not work. In his letter of 11 January, the Minister drew attention to the Children's Workforce Development Council experiments on new approaches to social work delivery and we are pleased to see that these are going ahead. Amendment No. 3 is designed to ensure that other experiments can go ahead under proposed new subsection (2A); and proposed new subsection (2B) is designed to ensure that that these are put on an equal financial footing to the social work practice pilots.
	Amendment No. 4 stipulates that the piloting of any such experiments should be considered alongside the pilots of social work practices, and that a rollout of these practices should not go ahead until a full evaluation has been completed and reported upon to Parliament. Amendment No. 5 sets out the terms of the evaluation, including the need for it to be undertaken by a body independent both of the Secretary of State and his department and of the local authorities involved, and for it to consider experiments that have been undertaken in a full cross-section of local authorities.
	The Minister's letter of 11 January was reassuring on many of those points, and we were much encouraged by what it said. The letter itself is not in the public domain, however, so it would be helpful if he could repeat for the record some of the assurances he gave us in that letter; for example, about the nature of the evaluation process and the range of local authorities likely to be involved in experiments. These are important issues and we are anxious to get his reassurances on the record. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, as we have heard, the case for wider access to independent advocacy for this group of children has been made for more than a decade, since Sir William Utting concluded—should the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, speak instead of me?

Noble Lords: No.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, Sir William Utting concluded back in 1997 that looked-after children need independent advocacy as a source of protection and as a means of ensuring that their voices are heard within an otherwise closed system. More than 10 years later, current developments in Jersey remind us of what can tragically happen when children's voices are not heard. Of course the Government are right to strive for a situation in which all professionals who come into contact with children actively seek and listen to their views, but that is not sufficient. There is so much that is good in the Bill—we just need to travel a little further. An independent advocate has a unique role: to represent the child's views, free from any other competing responsibilities. From that position, the advocate can build a relationship of trust with the child, and trust, as we know, is vital if we are to keep children in care safe.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I shall speak to my amendment—

Lord Judd: My Lords, I rise briefly—

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment No. 6 in this group. I am grateful to noble Lords who have shared in raising concerns about the social work practice proposals, and I thank the Minister for his preparedness to listen to these anxieties. The Minister's replies in and outwith the Chamber have helped me to see the potential virtues of the proposed practices and I look forward to seeing the results of the pilots. However, full consideration has to be given to the impact of these social work practices on the wider social care workforce. My amendment would oblige Her Majesty's Government to do that.
	The danger is that social work practices might strip the best social workers, and the funding, from child protection and family support. Unison highlights how unattractive child protection already is, with social workers often portrayed as child-stealers. The British Association of Social Workers recognises the problem and proposes one solution to it. This area is of most concern to me.
	I believe we are all agreed that prevention, support and early intervention are the right way forward to improve outcomes for children. My noble friend Lady Howarth of Breckland has made that argument many times over, and the Conservative paper on social workers, No More Blame Game, makes just that point in its first paragraphs, yet the recent research published by the University of East Anglia and commissioned by Her Majesty's Government highlights numerous shortcomings in current child protection work, so we absolutely must not make the situation any worse. I hope the Minister can assure me and the House that the necessary steps will be taken to consider the impact of social work practices on the wider workforce. I look forward to his reply.
	I have a further amendment in this group, Amendment No. 44. It was drawn to my attention by one of the Clerks in the Public Bill Office that there might be a possibility of introducing the social work practices without conducting any pilots at all. That is the loophole that my amendment seeks to cover.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I commend the amendment, to which I have put my name, for serious consideration by the Government. We shall come later in our deliberations to the United Nations convention, but underpinning all that we do should be our commitment to it. Therefore, local authorities should be expected to do everything possible to fulfil the objectives of the Bill.
	Not for the first time, nor, I suspect, for the last, I respectfully underline—I hope that Liberal Peers present will forgive my making this point—that putting aspiration into a Bill is one thing; if we are serious about this, we must use all our endeavours to persuade our colleagues in local government to make it a reality, and there will be a Bill attached. If the nature of local politics is how one can keep the rates down better than anybody else, we will not be able to do these things. Therefore, there is a job of education to be done about how we have to be prepared as a community to pay for the services and the objectives which we are say are worth while. With that reservation, I support the spirit of the amendment.
	I have not put my name to the amendments on evaluation, but they are pretty innocuous and the Government should consider them seriously. I say again that it is one thing to set out on a course, but the setting out on a course is not the fulfilment of the objective. So often, intention becomes a substitute for effective results. Therefore, it is important to have built into legislation arrangements for how we monitor how far what we in good faith try to do is delivering the goods. There is a lot of good sense behind the amendment; I hope that the Minister will, in his usual, thoughtful way, be reassuring in his reply.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, those of us who attended the meeting with the Minister on social work practices and how they were to be rolled out will be very impressed with the amount of work that has since been done by the Minister. I support the amendments for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, set out; that is, that the commitments in them are not in the public domain and it is important to have them read out. I, too, am attracted to the idea of a report to Parliament on the success or otherwise—one hopes, the success—of the piloting arrangements, as well as to the requirement that the evaluation be carried out by a body that is independent of the appropriate national authority and of any local authority. I fully support the amendments and endorse that, too, of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, this is quite a dramatic move forward. It seems an excellent and interesting departure, which I think that most of the House will support. However, it is dangerous to go beyond the pilot project until there has been an evaluation of the downside as well as the upside of this new departure. For those reasons, I support those who have said that Clause 4 should not become law until there has been an evaluation of the pilot projects.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, the Minister knows that I am not an enthusiast of the new pilot projects, which probably puts it mildly, and which was epitomised by a moment in the meeting that he kindly held. I pay credit to him for his constant attempts to make transparent and clear what is happening on the ground. I am grateful for that. It was that moment when the person running the scheme said, "No, we don't have all the answers. That is why we are running the pilots". Experimenting with children's lives is too dangerous.
	I support some of the words of my noble friend Lord Listowel. If the pilots go forward I hope that they will take a holistic approach to these issues as they do not divide into pieces. You do not have a bit of time to deal with prevention; a bit of time when children get into danger when you have to deal with child protection; and a bit of time for rehabilitation. These problems with children run in and out of those professional areas of work during their lives in care. Therefore, I hope that the pilots will evaluate how social workers can deal with problems holistically so that we do not divide the work and lose our best social workers because the easier part is creamed off and the difficult problems that end up before the court or in a child abuse inquiry—I have been through three so I know the toll they can take—are left to those slogging away in the local authority.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, we very much support the Government in their initiative on social work practices to see, as the Minister said on Second Reading, whether giving social workers more freedom and flexibility will enable them to deliver a more personalised service and create more continuity for children in care. That is what we are all seeking and we have to give these new social work practices a chance.
	I sympathise with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, because it is always good to free up thinking and encourage new initiatives. But it would be difficult to evaluate one-off pilots and the cost would be open-ended. However, I hope that any successful initiatives in local authorities would be shared through good practice. What mechanisms are there to disseminate good practice?
	I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and others, are concerned that arrangements between private providers and local authorities are effective and do not adversely affect other aspects of local authority care provision. That is an understandable concern, but we believe that the pilot schemes already have mechanisms for thorough scrutiny and that duplicating this research would be an unnecessary expense. Will the assessment of the pilots take into account their impact on other services?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for her support for the pilots on social work practices. Amendment No. 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and Amendment No. 6, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, seek reassurances that the evaluation of the pilots will focus on what happens not only within the social work practices themselves but in the wider workforce in the local authorities concerned. I am happy to give those reassurances.
	The evaluation of the pilots will encompass the quality of service both in the social work practices and in the local authorities concerned, including local authority child protection services; it will take into account turnover of staff in both organisations; it will assess the capacity of the local authority to be a good corporate parent under the social work practice role; it will draw out the impact on local authority staffing and finances; and it will look at the effectiveness of interagency working, including access to a range of services. In short, it will be a robust evaluation that will do everything that Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would have it do. I hope that that meets the concerns that have been raised.
	Through Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, seeks to ensure what she calls a level playing field for the evaluation of social work practice pilots. Amendment No. 3 would permit any local authority that wishes to implement a new initiative for improving services for looked-after children to do so with the permission of the Secretary of State. I assume that Amendment No. 3 is also intended to provide that the local authority in question should be given a similar amount of funding as the local authorities piloting social work practice to ensure a like-for-like comparison.
	The Government understand the theoretical concern behind these amendments but we do not think there is a real issue here in practice—simply giving the figures makes the point. The total budget for the social work practice pilots is approximately £6 million over three years. Over that same period total local authority spending on children's services runs into the billions. There is nothing stopping any local authority using its share of that spending to pilot any other arrangements it wishes within the law, and it does not require the permission of the Secretary of State to do that. Even if we look just at projected increases in spending, the social work practice budget is tiny. In the Comprehensive Spending Review for 2008-11 we are making about £300 million available specifically for improvements to services for children in care, which dwarfs the £6 million provided for social work practices.
	Furthermore, local authorities wishing to introduce innovative new ways of organising social care services for children and families have just had the opportunity to bid for up to £200,000 extra a year through the Children's Workforce Development Council remodelling social work delivery pilots project. This is broadly the same amount that will be available to local authorities participating in the social work practice pilots. We expect the social work development council to publicise the results of those pilots, therefore acting as a spur to best practice more widely in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked us to do. So we really do not think that there is an issue here in respect of level playing fields.
	Amendment No. 44, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, together with his Amendment No. 6, would require the Government to publish and lay before Parliament a report of the evaluation of the social work practice pilots within three years of Royal Assent to the Bill. In Grand Committee I explained at length why the appropriate piloting period should be five years rather than three, and I thought that the case for five years was generally supported at that stage. It will be roughly a year after Royal Assent before the pilots are up and running. We want to ensure that social work practice pilots have a full two years of operation before an evaluation report is prepared, which means that we are looking at three and a half years at a minimum before the report of the evaluation could be published. It is important that we do not get into a situation where the evaluation report is rushed or ill considered because the evaluators are struggling to meet an artificial deadline set down in primary legislation. That is the reason we have gone for the five-year period, but if it is possible to produce the evaluation report in a shorter time, we will do so.
	The noble Earl attributes his Amendment No. 44 to the clerks' exercising their vigilant eye on the Bill's provisions. He seeks to elicit a commitment from me that the Government will undertake pilots and will not simply move to make the social work practice model available to all local authorities, which could happen theoretically simply by commencing Clause 6. I give him that commitment. We intend to make a commencement order to commence Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 for the purposes of piloting social work practices shortly after Royal Assent once we have identified which local authorities will take part in the pilots. As I have made clear before, we will not commence Clause 4 unless a decision is made on the basis of the evaluation of the social work practice pilots to make the model available more widely. I believe that the concern of the noble Earl is fully met in the assurances I have just given.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. It is important that there are comparators for these pilots. As he said, and as he reassured us in his letter, the pilots being carried forward by the Children's Workforce Development Council will be fully funded. I accept his assurance that this is the case and that they are funded on a basis that is roughly equal to the pilots on social work practices. It is also important that we obtain an assurance that the evaluation will be holistic and will look in the round at the impact of the social work pilots on the provision of other social work services by local authorities. There is a great danger that the pilots might be seen to leave the corporate parenting role of local authorities somewhat bare, and it is important that one looks at how far the local authority is able to carry forward these other functions at the same time.
	While, in some sense, I would have hoped that we might have got a slightly fuller repeat of the letter that the Minister sent on 11 July—was the letter available widely to Members of the House and was it made available in the Library?—he gave us good reassurances in that letter, and I am grateful to him for that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

European Council: 13-14 March 2008

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the European Council held in Brussels that I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on 13 and 14 March. I begin with the most immediate concern that the Council addressed: the need to ensure that, faced with global financial turbulence and what the Council identified as a deteriorating global economic outlook, high global oil and commodity prices and volatility in exchange rates, we continue to do all we can with co-ordinated action at a European and a global level to maintain stability and growth. "All European member states agreed to measures for greater financial market transparency: first, prompt and full disclosure of exposures to structured products and off-balance-sheet activities; secondly, more rigour in credit ratings; thirdly, improvements in valuation standards, particularly for illiquid assets; and, fourthly, a strengthening of risk management under the capital requirements directive."Given the globally transmitted nature of the risks, it is clear that many of these recommendations—the changes to credit rating agency operations and assessments, risk management and disclosure by global financial institutions and the changes to capital adequacy rules and arrangements for valuing financial instruments, which have now also been proposed by the American Administration—can best be implemented at a global level."In welcoming this international dialogue as the first step in reform, I can tell the House that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is today writing to members of the International Monetary Fund, the G7 and the Financial Stability Forum to call for agreements on co-ordinated international action on transparency and disclosure, better risk management and action on credit rating agencies when the G7 and the IMF meet from 10 to 12 April. "In line with the approach of other major central banks, the Bank of England has this morning announced a further £5 billion liquidity support to financial institutions, and a new group has been set up to improve liquidity in the mortgage market."At the European Council, I made clear that, while our economy is resilient and the fundamentals are strong, we will at all times remain vigilant and, particularly at this time of global uncertainty, we will continue to take whatever action is necessary to maintain economic stability."The Council also discussed, and I strongly welcomed, a new approach to the rising number and economic power of sovereign wealth funds, now worth $2 trillion, but potentially soon to be worth $10 trillion. Our new approach of calling for a voluntary code of conduct based on best practice, openness, transparency and corporate governance is one that will enable funds to show that they are commercial in their operations. "The Council also discussed food and energy price inflation and agreed further steps to monitor worldwide inflationary pressures. We agreed that the current global financial turbulence was not a reason to postpone the fundamental economic reforms that are essential to building a more competitive European economy, and that we now need to press ahead with the liberalisation of markets and with new investment in knowledge and innovation. This includes further liberalisation in the energy, post and telecoms markets, where market opening could generate between €75 billion and €95 billion of potential extra economic benefits and create up to 360,000 new jobs."We discussed the need for an economic reform strategy that looks beyond Lisbon—a comprehensive strategy to improve the business environment, strengthen the EU's economic relations with China and India, put our creative and knowledge industries at the forefront of the world economy, and make European universities leading global players, particularly through increasing their contacts with business. The next stage of the Lisbon agenda will include a review of human capital and skills in Europe and a renewed focus on competition policy in the EU single market."The second major issue discussed by the Council was climate change. It is essential that we achieve our ambition of a comprehensive post-2012 agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create a global low-carbon economy. In December, Europe's united front at the climate change negotiations in Bali played an important part in the historic breakthrough that agreed the need to make large cuts in emissions, and achieve a new climate deal within the next two years. Only a common European approach—a Europe with Britain not at the margins but at the centre, leading the world—can ensure a global low-carbon economy founded on a global carbon market. Building on that commitment to move towards a low-carbon economy, the Council agreed an ambitious schedule for adopting a package of measures to cut EU emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, or by 30 per cent as part of an international agreement. "The Council also agreed with the UK on the need for an effective EU Emissions Trading Scheme to provide the incentives to drive carbon reductions in the most cost-effective way, and for an EU ETS cap on emissions set centrally with a clear emissions reductions trajectory to give investors the predictability they need. "The Council also considered a report from Javier Solana, the EU high representative on foreign affairs, on the security implications of climate change, and at the UK's request agreed to submit recommendations on follow-up action—including intensifying co-operation with countries outside Europe—by the end of this year. "Meeting the EU's climate change targets requires not just action to reduce carbon emissions from energy suppliers and from industry, but incentives to change individual behaviour as well. The Council will now invite the Commission—in bringing forward its legislative proposals on VAT rates, due in the summer, and working with member states—to examine areas where economic instruments, including VAT rates, can play a role in increasing the use of energy-efficient goods and energy-saving materials from, as the UK has proposed, insulation and household materials to energy-efficient electrical goods. "The Council also agreed on the importance of achieving an effective, fully functioning and joined-up internal energy market as an essential condition for the secure, sustainable and competitive supply of energy in Europe, committing to an energy agreement by June this year. It is clear that the EU's energy security is strengthened by a policy that takes a collective approach to third-country producers, notably Russia. "Europe can also play an important role in ensuring stability beyond its borders, and the Council agreed to build on existing co-operation to establish a 'Union for the Mediterranean' to promote security and stability in the wider region and to provide a framework for co-operation between the EU 27 and other Mediterranean coastal states on political and security issues as well as economic, social and cultural affairs. That new union will be launched during the French presidency in July this year. "We also agreed that international development issues and the achievement of the millennium development goals—and Europe's continuing leadership as the biggest contributor of aid—would be the subject of a major discussion at the European Council in June."The outcome of the Council and the preparations being made for the June Council affirm the conclusions of the debate we have had in this House over the last nine weeks, demonstrating that, with the completion of the Lisbon treaty, we now have an opportunity to move beyond institutional issues to create a more outward-looking, flexible, global Europe and to address the challenges that matter most to the citizens of Europe."With 700,000 businesses, 3.5 million jobs and 60 per cent of our trade dependent on our relationship with Europe, we should do nothing to put the stability of that relationship at risk. It is only by working constructively with and remaining fully engaged with our European partners that we can address the challenges ahead. "And as we prepare for the European Council in June and the French presidency later in the year, our aim is that European countries working together lead the way on climate change, on security, on international development and on the response to global financial turbulence. I will be discussing with President Sarkozy when he visits Britain next week how we can take these issues forward; and I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I do hope that, unlike at the treaty signing ceremony, the Prime Minister on this occasion managed to get there on time.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Oh!

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it was a good joke.
	On the Statement, there were some welcome initiatives at the summit conclusions, or at least some warm words, if "warm" is a word that can ever be applied to the turgid prose of these communiqués. It was good, for example, to see further commitments on climate change, which scarcely figures in the EU treaty. But can the noble Baroness explain why specific targets to reduce energy usage in government car fleets by 10 per cent in five years, which were in the draft conclusions, were removed from the final communiqué? I know that the noble Baroness will think that I am making another joke, but I am not. Was it perhaps the news that we heard at the weekend that the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, is going to keep his 2-litre Jaguar car, as opposed to having one of the energy-efficient vehicles which other Ministers are obliged to maintain? Perhaps that is why the Government could not agree to the targets. There must be a reason and the noble Baroness can tell us.
	Was there discussion of the programmes on carbon capture? Did the Prime Minister win support at the summit for renewed investment in clean coal? What progress was made on the desperately important issue of energy security, on which we have dithered for far too long? The communiqué speaks of agreement on security in a new energy action plan in spring 2010; but does this not simply serve to show the hopeless lack of grasp in Brussels of the urgency of this issue? I hope that the noble Baroness could press the Prime Minister for far more urgency on that subject when he next goes to a European summit.
	There was much talk in the communiqué—and I am sure there was much talk at the summit—of the stability of financial markets. Stability is of course the Government's new buzz word. I think that it was used 28 times in the Chancellor's Budget speech last week. However, given what is happening now in the markets, stability has about as much connection with today's realities as a communiqué from the Flat Earth Society.
	Was there any discussion of Northern Rock during those meetings? Did any other leaders compliment the Prime Minister on his handling of the crisis as a blueprint for their own finance Ministers—or not? Very importantly, did the Prime Minister bring home a single assurance that the UK would not be pursued for illegal state aid following the nationalisation of this bank? Have there been any approaches from another state about pursuing the UK for illegal state aid in the case of Northern Rock?
	The Prime Minister said four years ago that it was unacceptable that at least 50 per cent of regulations came from Europe. What, practically, has he done about it? When we heard the Statement on the previous summit, I asked the noble Baroness to give an example of an EU regulation on business that had been scrapped since the previous summit. I do not suppose that she has managed to find out yet, because her officials will no doubt take a great deal of time to find that out; but if she has the information, I hope that she will share it with us. Why are new regulations still being added? Can she confirm that, according to the British Chambers of Commerce, 70 per cent of the cost of regulation in the past decade is down to the EU? The communiqué is frank in admitting that the already feeble efforts to reduce EU regulation need to be stepped up. So why does the communiqué envisage removing regulations on small business only if that is line with the acquis communautaire? Is not the root problem that too much regulation is already in the acquis communautaire and it will require far more radical resolve if the red tape strangling European competitiveness is to be dealt with?
	Let us take one example. In November 2006, the Prime Minister said that he was "pleased for all holidaymakers" that he had succeeded in raising the £145 limit on the value of goods that can be imported into the UK without duty. He said that he wanted a £1,000 limit, so can the noble Baroness tell us why the limit is still £145? When will a £1,000 limit come in? Is it not true that the Prime Minister has failed to get this agreement within the European Council of Ministers?
	The conclusions also warn Governments about the danger of high deficits. I expect the noble Baroness can confirm that Spain's budget is in balance, that Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden all have budget surpluses but that Britain has the largest deficit in western Europe. Is that not a telling comment on the wasteful handling of national finances over the past 10 years?
	In the communiqué there is nothing about continuing atrocities in Zimbabwe and Darfur. Why not? The Prime Minister took the right stand in relation to Mr Mugabe, but did he take the opportunity to rebuke certain other leaders for their deplorable weakness in meeting this tyrant? The Prime Minister said last year that he would seek EU sanctions on Iranian oil and gas investment and its financial sector. Why have no new sanctions been agreed?
	While Ministers were in Brussels, the situation in Tibet was becoming a cause of major international concern. Senor Solana was swift to say that events in Tibet would not stop him being in the front row for the Beijing Olympics. I will forbear to comment, but what discussions took place on this issue and what action do EU Ministers now propose? We hear of calls for restraint but in the UK Government's view, what comprises restraint? China is a great nation with an immense potential influence for good in the world. Is it not essential that it rises to the challenges of pluralism in the 21st century?
	Finally, does the noble Baroness know whether the Prime Minister was congratulated on the vote in the other place to block a referendum on the EU treaty? Did any other leaders perhaps seek his good offices in arranging meetings with Mr Clegg to learn from that leader how to avoid a referendum commitment? There may well have been sighs of relief from other EU leaders about the junking of the commitments given to the British people by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. However, praise abroad is one thing; anger and disillusion here is another. Therefore, will the Government, even now, honour their crystal-clear pledge to the people of Britain to hold a referendum, entered into to help them to secure a return to office in the general election in 2005? This is something that many on all sides of the House would surely expect and something to which we shall return many times in the coming weeks.

Lord McNally: My Lords, it is becoming an increasing pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on these Statements because he meanders around looking for a belt to hit below, he always has a few good jokes, and he always ends up with an attack on the Liberal Democrats, which makes me feel wanted.
	If the Prime Minister did anything in Brussels about recent events in the Commons, I am sure he shared with the 25 other members of the European Union, which are going through a parliamentary process to ratify the amending treaty, an agreement that this was a very sensible way ahead. I am sure that if he had talked to the Irish Prime Minister, he would have learnt that, so far as I am told, the great treaty debate and referendum in Ireland are turning not on the wisdom or otherwise of Ireland ratifying but on this being a good opportunity to rap Bertie Ahern over the knuckles over some alleged malpractice in Irish government. Of course, that is always the problem with these things: you ask the people one question and they answer a quite separate one. My goodness, we have brought the noble Lord to his feet.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord will readily admit that a couple of years ago the Liberal Democrats were saying that there should be a referendum, so they were not against referendums in principle.

Lord McNally: My Lords, on 1 April, probably the best day of the year to have such a debate, I will explain in full and take the noble Lord step by step through Liberal Democrat thinking on this matter. I am glad that he mentioned the Flat Earth Society. I am sure we shall have quite a few contributions on 1 April from that learned organisation—mainly from behind the noble Lord.
	On the communiqué, I was much relieved that not only did the Prime Minister arrive on time but he seemed to have enjoyed himself and to have had a good, practical, effective working time, which we are now arguing we want to move to in dealing with Europe, instead of having an argument that looks back over 50 years. What slightly depresses me about 1 April is that not only will I hear the same arguments that I have heard since I first joined the European movement in the early 1960s, but those arguments will be made by some of the same people.
	One encouraging point about the Statement is the way in which it reminds us that, in a time of chill winds and uncertainty, it is good to have the strength of the European Union around us. Perhaps in future months we shall hear less about the wonders of the Anglo-Saxon model when comparing various economic performances. It is certainly good that the Prime Minister has had the opportunity of close co-operation and consultation with colleagues at a time when an economic storm is coming in from the west and when we shall need all the friends we can get. I recommend to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, on Friday about the need and the value of the single market and how that will be so important to our economic future.
	On climate change and energy, the big problem is that the Prime Minister had a better record in Brussels than he did in his Budget. Although the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is poised to tell us that we do not need to worry about making a real impact on renewable technologies and combating climate change, to those of us who are worrying I say that we need more actions to match the pious words.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on Tibet. It is necessary to know what was said at that time. I was encouraged by the idea that the Lisbon agenda—not the treaty—needs to be moved back to centre stage and built on, which we would support.
	On Russia and energy, my only concern is that we are almost being egged on to a new confrontation with Russia. There is a need for Europe, for energy and other reasons, to get into a serious dialogue with Russia rather than seeming to embrace a Cold War mark 2.
	I have come back from Tunisia where there is considerable interest in and almost a demand on Europe. While I understand that in recent years there has been a great deal of concern about Europe to the east, Europe's southern neighbours need our attention as well. In the approach to President Sarkozy's initiative on the Mediterranean, I hope that there is not the usual knee-jerk reaction: "It is French, therefore it must be a plot against us". There is an opportunity to take initiatives on areas of real importance; not just energy supply but immigration from the south into Europe. I have always felt that some lasting solution to the problem of the Middle East may involve the European Community in a broader Mediterranean treaty.
	For the rest, I found the Statement realistic. We have our criticisms of the Government and our doubts about the response to some of these issues. At least it underlines and strengthens an issue which will preoccupy us from 1 April onwards: whether European Councils will address important issues relevant to the British people, or whether we will be mired in old, long-dead arguments.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin where the noble Lord, Lord McNally, left off. What was so important about this particular Council was that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was fulfilling his commitment to move European debate on from institutional change—which, when we ratify the treaty, will be complete—into a new phase of dealing with issues directly relevant to the citizens of this country and the European Union.
	I was struck when I looked at the Council agenda to see that every single issue under debate, or which was discussed in the margins, was relevant and appropriate to be discussed across the European Union. Climate change, financial instability and some of the international issues that noble Lords have raised from the Front Benches must be addressed with a concerted and, I believe, European approach. I am delighted that my right honourable friend was there—on time—and took part. Clearly, the agenda was very much focused on his agenda and he played a prominent role for this country, as one would expect. I pay tribute to him, as I am sure the whole House would, for leading for Britain. That is an important part of the work of the Prime Minister and it is an important time in our deliberations in Europe as we face the challenges ahead.
	On car fleets, it finally turned out that the communiqué did not alter at all; it says exactly what it said it before. It urges national Governments and institutions to set examples. My noble friend Lord Jones can defend himself extremely well, but this is about him being seen, as Trade Minister, to be driving a British car; he feels passionately about that. The only addition to the communiqué was to do with VAT and the opportunity of using it, which, as noble Lords will realise from the Statement, is being taken forward by the Commission. If anything, our response on these issues was to strengthen the final statements.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised the important issue of carbon capture. Page 13 of the communiqué recalls that,
	"the objective of proposing a regulatory framework on carbon capture and storage ... is to ensure that this novel technology is deployed in an environmentally safe way, which will be demonstrated through projects, as agreed ... in Spring 2007".
	It is important, as the noble Lord will know, to do this by checking and working out exactly how we could complete it. That must be done in a piloted way.
	I do not know whether Northern Rock was specifically discussed; I was not there. However, my right honourable friend would have made clear how Britain has solved for the moment the issues raised and how we are, as ever, keen and concerned to ensure that we have a stable economy. I make no apologies for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer talking about stability and the importance of how we move forward economically in the Budget. I would expect him to do that; it is an important time, when we must be vigilant of what happens in the European and global economic markets. Noble Lords only have to listen to the news—it is mentioned practically every day—to know the relevance and importance of that.
	A lot of work has gone on on scrapping regulations. The noble Lord is absolutely right: I cannot give him a regulation today. I am determined to get him a list, however, to make my point. No doubt he will return to this in our deliberations on the EU treaty in any event.
	The noble Lord's point about small and medium-sized enterprises and small businesses in particular is important. There was some good language in the Council on better regulation, as the noble Lord indicated. It is in line with our priorities. The French have specifically said that they want to make issues around small and medium-sized enterprises a priority. They may push for legislation to look at what that means for competition. This will clearly be a growing issue, which noble Lords will welcome.
	On the international issues that were raised, as I understand it, Tibet was not discussed formally within the Council. Noble Lords will know of our concerns. Indeed, on 14 March, the Prime Minister said that we are very concerned at what is happening. We have asked for more information and we are keeping the matter under review. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said that there is concern among all European countries, which are seeking clarification on two important messages; first, the need for restraint on all sides; and, secondly, the need for substantive dialogue as the only way forward. We see real strains there, but the only way to deal with this is dialogue.
	Finally, the noble Lord is right that the European Council approved the principle of the union for the Mediterranean, which will be open to EU member states and southern Mediterranean partners. It will reinforce existing co-operation through Euromed, which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be familiar with. The idea is that the Commission will come forward with more detailed proposals in advance of the July summit in Paris, which will launch the union for the Mediterranean and deal with the issues that the noble Lord indicated.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is right that we do not need to worry about global warming. He will see why if he reads the book that I have written, which comes out in about three weeks' time; I hope that with his characteristic open-mindedness he will read it and inform himself. I shall ask the noble Baroness a question that was increasingly puzzling me as she was going through her Statement. It is clear that the Government's climate change policy—which is, I am afraid, the same as the climate change policy of my own party and equally misguided—requires a substantial increase in the price of energy. That is what the emissions trading system and its successors are about. Yet, whenever the price of energy goes up, we have the Prime Minister lecturing OPEC that it should produce more to moderate the increase and we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer calling in the generating companies to say that they must not put their prices up as much as they have. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House state simply whether Her Majesty's Government wish to see higher energy prices or lower energy prices? A one-word answer will do: "higher" or "lower".

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am looking forward to a free copy of the noble Lord's book, which he has so successfully—I have got to buy it?

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, the noble Baroness can afford it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that is an interesting idea. I look forward to seeing it in any event. Perhaps I shall borrow it from the Library. I shall not give a one-word answer, and I shall explain why. We want to see energy prices that people can afford and high-quality energy provided through diversity of provision. The noble Lord will know very well that a lot of the work that is going on across government is considering how to provide security of energy for industry and the consumer in terms of supply, affordability and diversity in order to make sure that we have the variability that we need. The ambition is to have a diverse system of energy supply and energy that is affordable for business and to the economy working with our partners in Europe and globally.

Lord Cotter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her responses on the questions that have been raised so far. It is encouraging to hear that small business will be addressed following the recent discussions. I draw attention to the example of the Netherlands, where the impact assessment of regulations and Bills is run by an independent organisation. In the other House, I frequently raised this when Bills came forward. Our impact assessments have improved, but can we look at the European experience, particularly the experience in Holland, where an independent organisation looks at the impact of regulations and Bills on small and other business?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Indeed, I will be surprised if Dutch Ministers do not make that very point. It will be of interest to see how far the Commission can produce ideas and proposals in the context of considering better regulation across Europe, which again is one of my right honourable friend's key agendas for the future of Europe, within the context of ensuring that small businesses can compete and procure successfully.

Lord Blackwell: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain a couple of points in the communiqué? Like other noble Lords, I scan these communiqués avidly for evidence of added value from Europe, but I struggle to understand the conclusion on page 3 that the European Council recognises the role of local and regional level in delivering growth and jobs and asserts that increased ownership of the growth and jobs agenda at all levels of government will lead to more coherent and effective policy making. Will the noble Baroness explain what the UK Government will do as a result of that conclusion?
	Secondly, to pick up the point made by my noble friend on deregulation, page 6 of the communiqué confirms the desire to reduce the administrative burdens arising from EU legislation by 25 per cent by 2012. I think that I am right—perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm it—that this is a general, not only small business, commitment. Given that the treaty that is being advocated makes it easier for the EU to legislate in a number of areas, I found this an interesting commitment. Have the Government any recommendations for how the EU can achieve this and, if so, could they put them in front of the House?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. On his first point, I say at the risk of us becoming a little anoraky and for those who do not have the conclusions in front of them that I understand from page 3, which is about the delivery of growth and jobs, that there is a commitment to ensure that at all levels of government—whether in central government, in local government, across the European Union, in the Commission and so on—people understand the agenda, relevance and importance of economic growth and the creation of jobs and wealth for nation states and across Europe. That means that people will think better about their policy making and will, we hope, link it all together to make it more coherent. I agree that the language of these communiqués sometimes leaves much to be desired—inevitably we are in the world of translations as well—but that was my interpretation of it. I hope that that addresses the noble Lord's point.
	The reduction of administrative burdens is linked to the section on unlocking business potential, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, but the noble Lord may be right about the administrative burdens target. I will have to come back to him on the specific details of what we are doing. I will put them in the Library of the House, which I think is what the noble Lord wants me to do.

Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Before Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
	"Welfare for child immigrants
	Immigration Service: welfare of children
	After section 11(1)(m) of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31) (arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare) insert—
	"(n) the Borders and Immigration Agency."."

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, the amendment seeks to place a duty on the Border and Immigration Agency to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who pass through its care by amendment of the Children Act 2004. We first championed the issue of children in the immigration and asylum process with cross-party support in 2004. Moreover, during the passage of the UK Borders Bill last year, the Conservative Party, with widespread backing in both Houses and from all parties, again raised this issue and voted on it.
	In Grand Committee, the Minister, while appreciating the strength of feeling on the issue, felt bound to point out that we lost the vote. He did not point out that it had been lost by only one vote and by nine votes in 2004. We have therefore brought this important issue back to your Lordships' House. Once again, it has strong and widespread support, for which we are most grateful.
	The Government, on the other hand, are opposed to placing this duty on the Border and Immigration Agency. They have argued consistently that introducing such an obligation will detract from the agency's primary purpose. However, this argument does not hold water. Many other agencies and bodies have duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children that are supplementary to their primary function—the police force being the most notable and analogous example. The specific duty of care is not contradictory to the primary function; it simply qualifies the manner in which the primary function is exercised.
	It is not our intention to hinder the Government in the important work on asylum and immigration that they undertake on our behalf. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said during the passage of the UK Borders Bill, this requirement would not prevent the implementation of a removal direction for a child or his or her family. It would at most affect the manner in which the Border and Immigration Agency did that job. This amendment would ensure that these children, whose narrative is starkly different from that of so many other children, do not fall through the cracks, but that they should receive proper care and attention. For anyone who thinks that that is not a problem, I suggest that they read the excellent and disturbing report published in January by Barnardo's, entitled, Like Any Other Child? Children and Families in the Asylum Process.
	I fully acknowledge that the Government have moved considerably on this, with a requirement for the Border and Immigration Agency to have regard to a code of practice to ensure that in the discharge of its functions, children are kept safe from harm. The Minister noted in Grand Committee that this would not be a token document. The code of practice has been welcomed by the children's charities and organisations which do so much amazing work in this area. I appreciate the trouble that the Minister has taken to ensure that Jeremy Oppenheim, the children's champion for the Border and Immigration Agency, contacted us and I am most grateful to Mr Oppenheim for his letter.
	However, the fact remains that while there is widespread appreciation of the code of practice, the Border and Immigration Agency needs only to have regard to it. The overwhelming view is that a statutory duty is a more appropriate way to ensure that the welfare of these children is promoted and that their interests are safeguarded. This amendment gives a visible sign that these children also matter. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 7. In the letter of 25 February from the children's champion of the BIA, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, referred, Mr Oppenheim referred to the agency,
	"taking a proactive approach to protect children from harm".
	I am afraid that this phrase, which has been consistently used by the Government when promoting the new code of practice, is taking a negative attitude to the matter of children's welfare. Protecting a child from harm is not the same as promoting his welfare. If you take the child's survival without undue harm as being represented by zero on a scale, harm would be -1, -2, -3 et cetera. But actively promoted welfare would put the child up to +1, +2, +3 et cetera. In other words, the child being well, happy and successful, rather than just not suffering harm, is a plus on the scale. I am sure that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and all of us in this House want.
	I was most concerned to read in a Children's Society report on 13 February about the shocking plight of some asylum seeker and refugee families in the West Midlands who are living without heating, electricity or access to food. In one case, a family of six were living in a single room. That is not promoting the welfare of children and it has to stop.
	Amendment No. 8 concerns a population of children which somewhat overlaps the population about which the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has just spoken. These are unaccompanied children who are seeking asylum or who have been identified as having been the victims of trafficking. The amendment seeks to ensure that they have a guardian, who is preferably appointed by an independent body. Since we debated this amendment in Grand Committee the Children's Commissioner for England has carried out an investigation into how such children are treated in the London Borough of Hillingdon, the borough nearest to Heathrow, which therefore carries an enormous burden in this respect. As part of this report, issues about the lack of resources provided to the borough by the Government were uncovered, as were a number of issues about the understanding of the powers of the commissioner. However, I do not intend to major on that today, although it would be an important subject for a debate at another time.
	What I would like to point out is that the commissioner's conclusion was that these children should have a guardian appointed for them, preferably by an independent body. That is exactly what my amendment would do and I am delighted to have the commissioner's support for it. He found that unaccompanied asylum seeking children had little understanding of what it means to be looked after, the responsibilities of the local authority or their own rights, while some did not seem to have a social worker, and that many of those who had one did not know who she was. His report states:
	"The views of the children and the file reviews of this group of children once again indicate the pressing need for children to have guardians. These guardians should remain in regular contact with the child throughout their application for asylum and until a final determination is made".
	I would stress that this person should not only assist the child to get through the legal system and make sure that he understands what is going on—now that children under the age of 12 are being interviewed, that is all the more important—but ensure that the child's welfare in all matters is undertaken properly.
	In our debate in Grand Committee the Minister misunderstood me in a reference I made to CAFCASS. He may have thought that I had claimed that unaccompanied children have no access to CAFCASS if their case should come before the family courts. Of course I accept that they do, but I was actually making the point that unaccompanied asylum seeking children have no access to an equivalent source of help when their case comes before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The Government have repeatedly pointed to the Refugee Council Children's Panel as a solution to this problem. I can tell the Minister that the council does not have adequate resources to meet all these needs. I quote Liz Barratt, a solicitor at Bindman and Partners, who says:
	"The panel simply does not have the resources to allocate an individual adviser to each unaccompanied or separated child referred to it, and therefore it is not true to say that it provides those children with representation. It cannot even allocate an adviser to all such children under 15 as it used to ... I think they are overwhelmed".
	These are the most vulnerable children and our system is failing them. A guardian would be able to help, and I do hope that the Government will think again.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, before I support these amendments, I should apologise for my remarks earlier. They referred not to Amendment No. 3, but Amendment No. 22. I am reminded of the late comedian Eric Morecambe, who when challenged on how he played Grieg's piano concerto, replied, "I play the right notes, but in the wrong order".
	It is impossible to reconcile the Government's assertion that every child matters with their continued refusal to include the Border and Immigration Agency within the scope of Section 11. This is not an absolute duty, it simply requires agencies to "make arrangements" and to,
	"have regard to the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare in the discharge of their functions".
	In our view, to deny refugee children this protection, which is afforded to all other children in the United Kingdom, is nothing short of discrimination.
	The need for the Border and Immigration Agency to place a greater emphasis on welfare concerns was brought sharply into focus by a recent research report published by the Children's Society entitled Living on the Edge of Despair. The research found evidence of children growing up in destitution as a result of government asylum policy. Children were found to be routinely going without food, heating or toys. Mothers were forced to prostitute themselves in order to survive. Young people in care had become homeless after being cut off from any help at 18, and pregnant women could not afford to eat. Regardless of their legal status, these children are entitled to better childhoods and we have a duty to protect and support them as we do all other children in the UK. If the mind of the House is to be tested, I hope very much that this and the first amendment are passed.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, in supporting Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on the Trafficking of Women and Children, and would remind the Minister, although no doubt he knows this, that some time later this year the convention on trafficked women and children will become part of English domestic law. Article 10.4 requires the United Kingdom, along with other countries which have signed the convention on trafficking, to provide a guardian, legal organisation or agency. I have not got the words entirely right but, I confess, I could not find in a hurry the convention. So there is an obligation on the Government to put into law—I would assume in primary legislation—the word "guardian" for trafficked children.
	Consequently it will not be long—because some asylum children are trafficked and some very often have human rights claims—before, at the very least, trafficked children have a person, whether it be a guardian or someone from a legal organisation or agency, when the convention on trafficking becomes part of domestic law. It seems extraordinarily appropriate that it should be ahead of the game by becoming part of children law at this stage.
	However, currently the word "guardian" has a special meaning in English family law. It means a guardian appointed by the court. There have been various guardianship laws in the past; for example, the Guardianship of Minors Act and the Guardianship (Refugee Children) Act, and the Children Act 1989 provides for guardians appointed by the court. I cannot believe that the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris of Bolton and Lady Walmsley, expect the court to appoint a guardian. Consequently, I respectfully suggest that it will be necessary either for another word to be used, or the word" guardian" is used with an explanation that this is not a guardian appointed by the court but a guardian appointed as an independent person—independent, certainly, of the Border and Immigration Agency and, I hope, of social services, which are overwhelmed, particularly in areas such as Croydon and Hillingdon—to carry out what the European convention will require us to carry out by the end of the year.
	I know the Government are looking at how to implement the trafficking convention and it would be entirely appropriate that this part of it should be done directly. However, I put the warning in about the word "guardian" having at the moment a legal meaning which needs to be broadened if it is to be used in the Bill.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I, too, support the responsible and humane principles which underlie the two amendments the House is considering. I support specifically everything that has been said so authoritatively by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who speaks with immense authority as a former president of the Family Division.
	The concept of guardianship in English law, as the noble and learned Baroness so clearly said, is a very special one. It means that guardianship is in the gift of the court. A guardian is an appointee of the court who has a special responsibility towards it. Therefore, while I well appreciate the indication of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, it was never the intention of the drafters of the amendment that it should be a guardianship of that nature.
	However, it is important to realise that the European concept of guardianship is somewhat different from our own. In Europe they see guardianship as much on the same par as a person who is an adviser or a helper of the child. Goodness knows there is every need for such a role, but it is not the role of a guardian. In the light of the noble and learned Baroness's remarks, the question that I humbly and respectfully raise is whether it is necessary to use the term "guardian". It is important that the officer fulfilling the role is appointed by an independent body and that his remit and responsibilities are clearly set out in statute. Once you have done that, you have answered the problem to a large extent and you have brought English law, in an anticipatory way, into line with the convention even before it has come into force.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I apologise that I was not here for a moment or two at the beginning of this debate. I welcome the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton. I have discovered in conversations with her that there can be no question of her posturing or playing politics with this sensitive issue. I know that she is deeply committed to what lies behind the amendment and I congratulate her. It is in keeping with something that I believe can be a legitimate feather in the cap of the Opposition: the part that they played in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the pride that they took in their part in it. There is an element of consistency there that the House should recognise.
	I have one point to make. If we are serious about our commitment to that convention, as I hope we all are, we have an unavoidable obligation to promote the well-being of, not just safeguard, the child. I simply cannot think of a more difficult experience for a child than the circumstances in which they meet the authorities responsible for immigration. We can argue about how they come to be there and the legitimacy of their being there, but it is a time of extreme vulnerability for the child when all our imagination, determination and commitment to the convention should come into play.
	This is a matter of not leaving it to other agencies but ensuring that the priority and the resources are there for those in the front line of immigration policy to have our obligations under the convention high in their responsibilities. It is no good simply saying that we are committed to the convention and then, when there is a really traumatic moment in the life of the child, saying, "Oh, well, someone else is responsible at this particular time for promoting their interest; all we're concerned about here is a minimal function of safeguarding the interests of the child". That is the time when it really matters.
	I suspect that the noble Baroness might have been counselled that she ought to be a bit careful with this amendment because it had quite challenging implications for immigration policy. I would like to place on record my admiration for the fact that, if she did come under such pressure, she withstood it and said, "No, I want to stand by the promotion of the interests of the child at this critical time". If she has done that, it behoves us all to respond positively to what she has said.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I, too, apologise to the House for not being present when the noble Baroness began to speak to her amendment. I repeat a point that I made in Grand Committee about consistency. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has mentioned the problems faced by boroughs near Heathrow, such as Hillingdon. One of the effects of having so many of these unaccompanied minors is that they have been spread all over the United Kingdom to share the burden between social services around the country, but that means that there is a terrible inconsistency in the way in which they have been treated. One of the good effects of such an amendment, containing some form of statutory duty, would be to ensure some consistency in their treatment, which I suspect would be very welcome not just to the children but to the social services authorities, some of which may not appreciate fully what these children require.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, perhaps I may start with Amendment No. 7. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, this issue has been debated by the House several times. The House therefore knows that the Border and Immigration Agency is committed to meeting fully its obligations to children within the immigration context and to working both on its own and with others to keep children safe from harm.
	The Border and Immigration Agency appointed Jeremy Oppenheim, formerly director of social services in Hackney, as children's champion in spring 2006. In response to debates in this House last year, Section 21 of the UK Borders Act provides for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice to ensure that, in exercising its functions in the United Kingdom, the Border and Immigration Agency takes all appropriate steps to keep children safe from harm. The Act also creates a requirement for the agency to follow the code of practice.
	The proposed code of practice, Keeping Children Safe from Harm, which I have circulated to noble Lords who have taken a keen interest in this issue, was published on 31 January. Public consultation on it has begun. I stress that the code will apply not only to Border and Immigration Agency staff, but also, in response to the debate on the UK Borders Bill last year, to its contractors when they exercise immigration agency functions and are in contact with children who are in the United Kingdom. It will apply whether that contact is in person or indirect—for instance, making a decision on papers that has an impact on a child.
	The issue before us, therefore, is not whether we are committed to safeguarding children in the immigration and asylum system—the BIA is fully committed to that task—but the best means of doing so. Amendment No. 7 would extend the duty in Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 to the Border and Immigration Agency. In so far as the purpose of Section 11 is to ensure that children are kept safe from harm and are properly protected, the BIA takes its responsibilities seriously; hence the proposed code of practice and the machinery to enforce it. However, our concern is that applying the general terms of Section 11 to the BIA would have a side effect highly detrimental to the public interest; namely, that it would give a further legal basis for litigation to prevent the implementation of immigration decisions over and above the extensive litigation that already takes place in this area. This aspect marks out the BIA from the other agencies mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. I reiterate that the code of practice will bring the benefits that would arise from extending the Section 11 duty in respect of child protection while avoiding the serious risk of an increase in legal challenges to removal decisions.
	In developing the code, we have worked with important groups such as the Association of Directors of Children's Services, the Children's Commissioner, officials in the devolved Administrations, the Children's Society and Barnardo's. The BIA is also consulting widely on the content of the code and is actively seeking the views of NGOs and professionals with experience in children and their welfare.
	The requirements of the code could not be clearer or more robust. Perhaps I may quote from page 7, which states that,
	"the staff of the Agency must act in accordance with the following key requirement: that due consideration be given to the wishes and feelings of the child, parents, or any person with parental responsibility for the child, or whose views in caring for the child would normally be considered relevant. Partnership with the parents and consultation with the child should be the norm whenever a family are being required to comply with the immigration laws".
	Page 8 states that,
	"the Code recognises that the Border and Immigration Agency will keep children safe from harm by acting on our concerns about the safety of any child which, in the course of our dealings, appears to be at risk and referring to outside statutory and professional agencies where appropriate. This referral to outside agencies where aspects of protection are involved is an important part of the Border and Immigration Agency's approach".
	The code is not a document without teeth. There are new, strong training and inspection arrangements to back it up. On inspection, Section 48 of the UK Borders Act created the role of chief inspector of the agency and sets out the chief inspector's review and inspection functions in respect of the BIA. The chief inspector will have an active role to play in reviewing the agency's implementation of the code and, crucially, its performance in relation to children. All Border and Immigration Agency staff are currently receiving training on child awareness issues to keep children safe from harm, with two further, more intensive levels of training aimed at those staff members whose work directly affects children. Jeremy Oppenheim, who is overseeing this training work, takes his responsibilities very seriously indeed.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who is replying as fully as he always does. Would he please appreciate that those of us who are behind the amendment are specifically concerned with his concentration on safeguarding children? Our argument is that there should be a statutory responsibility at this critical time to promote the well-being of the child, which is not the same thing. That is our commitment under the convention—here is the child in the middle of a crisis or trauma, so how do we start building for its future, not just safeguarding it from harm?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I believe that the paragraphs of the code that I read out make clear the agency's responsibilities in ensuring that children are kept safe from harm. They could not have been spelt out more clearly. We do not believe that it is desirable to extend the 2004 Act because of the issues of more extensive litigation that will follow.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I in no way impugn the Minister's sincerity and sensitivity in this matter, but he said that if the amendments are accepted there is a danger that litigation will follow. Is he suggesting that at present the rights in the document from which he quoted cannot be enforced in the courts of our land? If these rights can be enforced, the amendments would make little difference. If they cannot, they are surely needed.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the rights in the code of practice have a statutory effect; it is statutory guidance to which all officers of the agency must have regard. The noble Lord will know that that places a strong legal requirement on them. For all those reasons, we believe that the code and the means in place to implement it meet the legitimate concerns underlying this amendment. We hope that the House will not impede the legitimate workings of the immigration system, which is an issue of real public concern, by supporting the amendment.
	On Amendment No. 8, we recognise that services for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, including children who have been trafficked, need to be improved. Some of the necessary changes that need to be made are described in Care Matters, which applies to all children, irrespective of their immigration status, as do the Bill's provisions.
	However, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, in respect of the concept of guardianship it is the substance of the role that matters, not the name. The reality for most unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is that they already have a long list of individuals who directly and specifically are concerned with their welfare. These typically include not only the Border and Immigration Agency asylum case owner, who will deal with their immigration affairs from start to finish, but, independent of the BIA, the solicitor who assists with their asylum application, representatives from the British Refugee Council's children's panel, who provide advice and assistance, their local authority-appointed social worker, the independent reviewing officer, who chairs their reviews, and, in many cases, a personal adviser. Many, especially the younger cohort, will also have their foster parents to turn to for help. We do not believe that it would serve their interests to add yet another level of complexity and duplication to a system that already ensures that there are a significant number of professional and concerned individuals whose roles, and in some cases statutory functions, include supporting the child—so many professionals that it could well cause confusion for children if things are not effectively co-ordinated.
	It may be helpful if I set out some of the practical arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, particularly how they access legal representation for the purposes of their asylum claim, as I am aware that this is an area of concern. All unaccompanied minors who apply for asylum are referred to the Refugee Council children's panel within 24 hours of the claim being lodged. The children's panel is a non-statutory body, but it is funded by the Border and Immigration Agency. The panel does not represent the children in their dealings with the agency but provides appropriate guidance and signposts them to the appropriate services that they need. In practical terms, this normally means arranging for the local authority to look after them appropriately and referring them to a solicitor if they do not already have one.
	The funding of legal services for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is provided by the Legal Services Commission. Legal aid is made available for solicitors to accompany the child to the first interview with the BIA, known as the "screening event", as well as the later interview, at which the child is interviewed about the substance of their asylum claim. Following recent changes, all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children aged 12 and above are now interviewed. The interview is conducted by specially trained immigration officials and must take place in the presence of a responsible adult.
	In previous debates, mention has been made of the difficulty that children have in giving clear instructions to solicitors. Obtaining relevant information from children can, of course, present difficulties, but it is the responsibility of solicitors who have a recognised specialism in asylum and immigration practice to ensure that relevant information is obtained to represent their client effectively. This is why children are interviewed by specially trained asylum caseworkers and why clear instructions exist to ensure that proper account of the person's age and circumstances are provided before asylum applications from children are refused on credibility grounds. Similarly, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal has issued guidance to immigration judges on the issue, as well as making it a requirement that the child is represented by an appropriate adult at all appeal hearings. Given these requirements, we are not persuaded that adding an extra layer of complexity to this process by the intervention of a legal guardian would provide a real benefit.
	The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made an important point about the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. As she rightly said, Article 10.4 of the convention calls for the representation of a trafficked child by—these were the words that she sought to give the House—
	"a legal guardian, organisation or authority which shall act in the best interests of that child",
	as soon as a child victim is identified or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child is a victim. We believe that the convention obligations are met by existing officers acting on behalf of the child in question, as I set out, and that the convention allows member states options other than legal guardians to meet the requirements of Article 10.4. For all these reasons, I hope that the House will not support these two amendments.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I am most grateful, as always, to the Minister for his courteous and detailed reply. I thank all noble Lords who added their names to the amendment and all who spoke so eloquently. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his kind words.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is not allowed to reply at Report but, following this debate, particularly given the comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, she may well wish to consult on the measure and perhaps bring it back at Third Reading.
	As regards the now familiar argument used by the Government, I say only that the Refugee Children's Consortium has taken legal advice which suggests that Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 would not prevent the Home Secretary from implementing the removal directions for a child or for his or her family and would at most affect the manner in which the removal occurred. As I said, the code is welcome, but the BIA needs only to have regard to it. We think that this needs to be stronger.
	We heard today from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth of the horrors faced by these children. Many of them, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, are trafficked. They are the very children whom we are seeking to champion. Wherever these children may originally have come from, and wherever they may go, they are first and foremost children and while they are in our country they should be afforded the rights of every child.
	In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said:
	"When the Children Bill was going through this House ... I remember thinking what wonderful legislation it was and how content I was that here was something on which I could agree with my Government ... Then, one evening, I came into the House and took my place on my Government's Benches. I was shocked to hear an amendment being moved by the Minister that would keep out of the great advances being included in the legislation the children of immigrants. Child asylum seekers would not have the protection that the Children Bill would provide to others".—[Official Report, 14/1/08; col. GC 433.]
	We now have an opportunity to right a wrong. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 173; Not-Contents, 119.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Before Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
	"Guardians for children with special protection needs
	(1) As soon as a child under 18 who is separated from both his parents and is not being cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so makes an asylum claim or a human rights claim or is identified as a victim of trafficking, a guardian shall be appointed to represent that child.
	(2) The following expressions have the same meaning in this section as section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41)—
	(a) "asylum claim";(b) "human rights claim."
	(3) "Trafficking" means the arrangement or facilitation of the arrival in, entry into, travel within, or departure from the United Kingdom for the purposes of exploitation as defined in section 4(4) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19)."

Lord Haskel: My Lords, the amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 7. The Question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that the Question has been put, has it not? How can you withdraw the amendment after the Question has been put?

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I asked if it was your Lordships' pleasure that it be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 [Support for children placed with family or friends]:

Lord Northbourne: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Clause 7, page 5, line 40, at end insert—
	"( ) In fulfilling his obligations under subsection (1) of this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to children's need for supportive parenting."

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 39. I welcome the government amendment that was introduced in Committee giving the Secretary of State a duty to promote the well-being of children in care. My amendment specifies that, as part of his general duty to promote the well-being of children in his care, the Secretary of State should also be concerned to ensure that, so far as possible, those children enjoy supportive parenting.
	I believe that having a reference in the Bill solely to the well-being of the child is not enough because the meaning of "well-being" in the context of children is not absolutely clear. For example, the guidance that the Government provide for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority seems to suggest that, in considering a parent's suitability for IVF treatment, the welfare of the child who may be born as a result of that treatment can be adequately provided for if it can be shown that the child is not likely to be exposed to serious harm. In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the difference between promoting the welfare of the child and just safeguarding the child from serious harm. It seems to me that there is a gradation of meanings in the phrase "the well-being of the child", going from "promoting welfare" through "best interests" down to "safety from harm" and, finally, to "safety from serious harm". In my view, "safety from serious harm" is not an adequate definition of the welfare needs of the child, especially for a child in care. On this, the Government seem to agree with me because they have introduced into the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill the phrase "supportive parenting" to fill the gap to indicate the level and kind of care that every child needs and is entitled to. If every child born by IVF is entitled to well-being and supportive parenting, surely a child looked after by the state should also be entitled to those things.
	In Amendment No. 11, I suggest the same general definition of the phrase "supportive parenting" as the one that the Government agreed to put in guidance in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Incidentally, the wording is taken from the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. It may well be that this definition should also be in guidance rather than in the Bill, and I should be glad to hear what the noble Lord feels about that.
	These amendments are important for children in care for the reasons that I have just given, but I believe that they could also serve a more general purpose—that of helping parents and prospective parents to be more aware of the parenting needs of the child. This Government believe, rightly, that every child matters. If that is true, surely it is important that all parents should at least know what their child needs from them.
	Most, but not all, mothers instinctively accept the responsibility of loving and caring for their child. Some fathers do not and some fathers are prevented from doing so by the child's mother. In our society today, significant groups of fathers do not accept that if a man fathers a child he has an ongoing responsibility for the parenting of that child. Today, about 50,000 children a year—that is, approximately 137 children every single day of the year—permanently lose all meaningful contact with their father. Of course, a birth father is not essential for the successful parenting of a child. Many children thrive without their birth father but many others do not, and too many do not do as well as they might. I refer, in particular, to the fact that they do not develop the self-confidence and social skills that they will need to survive in school and, later, in mainstream society.
	Research findings show that good, supportive parenting is easier to achieve through a team of two committed parents working together than through one person struggling alone. It is also true that both boys and girls—but especially boys—learn a lot from having a good father as a role model and from observing how a man and a woman can work together as a team and have an argument without a relationship breaking down. Fathers do matter.
	There is no easy solution to the problems in our society today caused by the lack of supportive parenting. However, there are undoubtedly some things that we could be doing and others that we should be doing. One obvious starting point is to reach shared values about how the state, parents and family should share the responsibility for a child's parenting. What are the shared values of our society on that issue? We have to consider what will work in practice. It simply is not reasonable for Government to expect parents to do their job in our society if they are not clear about what is expected of them.
	Unlike Scotland, England has no clear statement in statute law about the responsibilities of parenthood. I fear that today we are sleepwalking into a laissez-faire situation in which fathers and mothers are given little or no guidance about their responsibilities. We leave them to decide whether or not they want to become involved in the care and parenting of their child and, if either or both decide that they do not, the state picks up the pieces. Sadly, that policy is not working very well for two reasons. First, the state is not very well suited to being a parent. Children need parents, or surrogate parents, who are loving, committed and there for them in the long term. All those things are a tall order for an institution. Secondly, the cost of state parenting to taxpayers is very high, which leads to taxpayers' resistance and to cutting corners to save costs.
	I believe that a clear, non-prescriptive statement of what children in our society need from parenting could be helpful to parents, to all those whose job it is to teach or to guide parents and, indeed, to those who give guidance to immigrants arriving in this country about what we expect of them. The purpose of this group of amendments is to bring greater certainty about how Government, Parliament and our society believe that the responsibility of supportive parents should be shared between the parents, the family and the state.
	Amendment No. 39, is a repeat of an amendment I tabled in Committee and which received a very wide measure of support from noble Lords from both Opposition parties and from many of my noble friends and colleagues who are extremely well qualified in this area. As a result, the Minister said that he would take the matter away and, although making no promises, consider it again. I am sure he has done so and I shall look forward to hearing what he has to say. I believe that there are problems. However, will the Minister say whether the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan to include these things rather than suggest that there should be an absolute definition might be helpful? I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 and 40 in this group stand in my name. Amendment No. 40 is an amendment to Amendment No. 39 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which I support. I want to add a reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for one simple reason. If it were added to the duties of parental responsibility, the Government would have to do much more about public education so that people understand what the Government have signed up to. If more parents and children knew what was in the convention, I am sure that they would value it and use it in their everyday life. I have seen what a difference education about the convention can make to the standard of behaviour in a school in Hampshire and I know that those children involve their parents and the whole community in activities which demonstrates an understanding of the convention. They learnt that with rights come responsibilities and they respect the rights of others. That is why I am keen for a reference to having regard to the convention inserted into Amendment No. 39.
	Amendment No. 10 also puts a reference to the convention into the remit of the Secretary of State to promote the welfare of children, a welcome addition to the Bill made by the Minister on the last day in Committee. That is why I have asked for my amendment to be grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
	When the UK ratified the convention with cross-party support, the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, then the Health Minister—she is not in her place—said:
	"The United Kingdom played a leading role in drafting"—
	the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
	"The convention specifically draws together the rights of the child in one internationally recognised document. It will serve as an international standard against which countries that turn a blind eye to child exploitation, abuse or neglect can be measured".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/90; col. 703.]
	In October this year, the UK will be examined for the third time by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on its implementation of the convention. One of the committee's 78 recommendations made in 2002 was that the UK should incorporate the convention into domestic law. My amendment, while not giving children new rights that can be tested in the courts, will introduce a children's rights proofing process that has hitherto been lacking in policy development.
	It is a pity that, in Grand Committee, the Minister did not refer to any increased awareness within government of the need to have regard to and fully implement the convention as required by international law. Peers had a lengthy debate about the relationship between the five outcomes of Every Child Matters and the convention during the passage of the Children Act 2004. Initially, the Children's Commissioner legislation tied the commissioner to the five aspects of well-being, but not to the convention. After strong criticism in your Lordships' House, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, agreed to amend the legislation to require the commissioner to have regard to the convention. Now we have our opportunity to have the Secretary of State have regard to the convention too. Indeed, the Children's Plan, published only a couple of months ago, suggests that the Government now accept that the five outcomes and the convention are complementary.
	We are six months away from the next examination of the UK by the committee. We can expect strong criticism from this international human rights monitoring body on many aspects of law and policy. The Bill gives us the opportunity to start building the right government infrastructure now. We do not have to wait for the committee's conclusions. It is a long time since ratification. Were my amendment to be accepted, it would show considerable political commitment to the convention and require Ministers to accept the treaty as fundamental to improving the well-being of children in our country.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I have put my name to three of the amendments in this group, and shall speak particularly to Amendments Nos. 9 and 11. If I had been speaking on the Children Bill before it became the Children Act, it would not have crossed my mind that it was necessary to put in something about "supportive parenting". However, that was 20 years ago. We now live a world in which children are born to families with much less regard to the standards of 50, or even 20, years ago.
	The whole concept of parenthood seems less well known, understood and cherished than it has ever been before. We have got to a point where 40 per cent of children are born outside marriage. Children are born by IVF, which now has the need for supportive parenting, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said. It is necessary that people should be told what supportive parenting is. It should be taught in schools and to young people. There should be something that people can grasp and say, "This is what is meant by supportive parenting". I do not think it was needed in the Children Act, but it is needed now, so I particularly support Amendments Nos. 9 and 11. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, knows, I am not entirely happy about the proposal to amend Clause 10. The judges are against it. It may be that that would be better placed in guidance—there was excellent guidance for the Children Act—but it needs to be somewhere. For those reasons, I support Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 39.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment No. 11. I do not think that it would extend the essence of the law. I do not pretend for a moment to carry these things in my mind, so I have been looking at Section 31 of the Children Act 1989, which sets out the concept of harm to a child. The concept turns on questions of the child's health, his development and his welfare. The child's benefit is the obverse of that. It is not merely the negation of the concept of harm, but a positive advance in the other direction—a point that has already eloquently been made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I submit that Amendment No. 11 does not take the law any further. The three matters that it emphasises—health, development and welfare—are already emphasised in Section 31 of the Children Act 1989. As to the fourth matter,
	"guidance to the child in a manner appropriate to his age and development",
	nobody would for a moment argue that that is not already present in our concept of child welfare.
	A general question arises, which we debated fully in Committee, about whether we should follow the Scottish precedent. It is a very proper precedent. What Dr Johnson would have said about following the Scottish precedent, I know not, but be that as it may, there is no reason to believe that the needs of children south of the Tweed are different from those of children north of the Tweed. Therefore, I ask the Government to accept that what is already established law in Scotland—which, as far as I know, has not caused any difficulty—should be humbly and chivalrously accepted as part of the law of England and Wales.
	Finally, I shall reiterate a point I made en passant in Committee. Rather than have an exclusive definition, an inclusive definition would be very much better and would do no harm at all.

Lord Judd: My Lords, reference has been made to Scotland. As I am half-Scottish, from time to time I have an internal battle between the Scottish half of myself and the English half of myself. Not simply on this issue, alas, but on other social issues as well, I find the Scots half of me gaining ground. It looks to the English part of me to do something about that to maintain the balance. I hope that my noble friend will listen very carefully to the arguments.
	I support these amendments; indeed, I support the amendment to the amendment. They seem very helpful. On this issue, it is important to recognise consistency and commitment in all parts of the House. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who has been a constant reminder to the House of our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. For my full timespan, I was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In that committee, we were deeply concerned about the seriousness with which we followed through and recognised the responsibilities that our signature to that convention implied. It really is quite cavalier and dangerous to sign conventions if it is just a gesture with no follow-through or muscular commitment to delivering on them. We are dealing very much with the need for such muscular commitment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is in some ways quite courageous, because it is not altogether fashionable to speak out about the responsibilities of parenthood, and I am glad that he does. I am not sure whether his and my views would coincide on forms of parenthood, because I am heartened that we as an imaginative society are recognising more broadly the kinds of parenthood that there can be and that newer forms of parenthood are in many ways providing just the kind of commitment and care that more traditional forms of parenthood have not always provided. I think that anyone who looks at the situation objectively will recognise that, but that does not mean that the newer forms of parenthood do not also need support and encouragement: of course they do.
	I hesitate to take issue in any way with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, because I have unlimited respect for her experience and commitment. However, I ask her gently to reconsider some words that she used. She said that she thought it should be our response to ensure that parents are told what their responsibilities were. Frankly, that is a rather disastrous road to take. We should encourage parents and potential parents to understand what their responsibilities are. This is about education, not hectoring. We need to do a lot more in our schools in this respect, but I am absolutely convinced that, if we are to fulfil our responsibilities, these amendments are highly relevant. I cannot say how fervently I hope that, if my noble friend cannot accept them—of course I hope that he may be prepared to—he can positively and not defensively spell out the full-hearted arrangements that make them unnecessary.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was going to suggest that the Minister might not be able to accept some of the amendments, given some of his speech. I shall divide my remarks into three parts. First, I shall not speak on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, does that magnificently, and I can say only that I support her attempt to get that to underlie the general legislation for children in this country.
	Secondly, on supportive parenting, I want us to remind ourselves that we are talking about children in public care and the kind of parenting that those children want. I shall separate that from general parenting. Listening to my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, whose pressing of the amendment I admire immensely, I felt that I should be sitting alongside my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Bolton, on the Conservative Front Bench and saying that this sounds like the nanny state. I am quite sure that many parents in this country feel very strongly that they are doing well to bring up their children. Alongside the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I probably see in my job in CAFCASS as many complex families as your Lordships can ever conceptualise. Many of those families are doing well even in adversity. We must remember that in the new constituted families of a variety of kinds, even where there are a number of step-parents, children do not always suffer. We are talking about preserving those elements of parenting when children are in public care. I ask the Minister for the reassurance that in guidance we have an understanding that these children need more than ordinary parenting. We have to remember that by the time these children are looking for supportive parenting, they need something more. They have usually had experience of broken homes, have often experienced abuse and may have had experience of the criminal justice system, which has caused their parents, who may be responsible, to push them out of their homes. These children often come from backgrounds where there is a great deal of disturbance and they need more than ordinary parenting.
	I assume that in guidance, and in the work that local authorities are expected to do with these children, there will be more. That is why we want the elements pointed out by my noble friend; that is, health, good education and all that comes together in well-being. These children need more than anyone else. In the past, we have talked about corporate parenting, local authority general parenting and councillor parenting. We have just got to say that these children need the best professional help that we can give, but with love. That is really good, supportive parenting.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I realise that we are on Report, not in Committee, and I shall be brief. Like noble Lords who have already spoken, I am grateful to the Minister for having met us between Committee and Report stages to discuss these issues. I have put my name to these amendments because, like other noble Lords, it is very important that we have a strong, positive message as to what we expect from parents, with a clear definition of supportive parenting, irrespective of who those parents are. Such a definition is needed for educational material for schools; for health visitors and midwives; for those people who are likely to come across the female child in particular when she becomes pregnant—accepting that that often may be sadly an underage pregnancy; and for social workers who are looking after children in care, for whatever reason.
	Currently, we could not find a clear, positive definition anywhere. I accept that the Minister probably will say that this cannot be in the Bill, but I hope that it will go into guidance and that he will pick up on the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who has outlined the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child so often, where again a positive role model is set.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, as always, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has made some interesting points. She speaks with great knowledge and passion on these issues. I know that a great deal of work is going on in the promotion of the UNCRC. The noble Baroness often talks as she did today of the rights respecting schools; I hope to visit one soon. They appear to be having a significant impact on behaviour and on pupils respecting one another.
	As has already been mentioned, the last Conservative Government not only ratified the UNCRC with cross-party support, but played a leading role in drafting the convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said on a previous amendment, we are rightly proud of it. However, I acknowledge—I have sympathy here with the Government—that some parts of the convention are more difficult and contentious than others.
	The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, present a welcome way in which the duty to promote a child's welfare is made more specific in what it is to cover and adds to the likelihood of the general duty having more effect and power. It does that without placing any extra burden on the Secretary of State. We are all searching for ways to ensure that children develop healthily, happily and safely into responsible and well adjusted adults. Supportive parents, giving trustworthy guidance, are essential for such development. Wherever possible, that should be the guidance and support of both parents.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, there are many single parents who do the most wonderful job, often in the most difficult circumstances. Their children thrive and they are a credit to them. I wonder therefore if the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, might like to sit next to me, because I genuinely believe that they do a marvellous job. But most single parents do not choose the situation in which they find themselves. We should do all that we can to ensure that both parents recognise and understand—the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—their duties and responsibilities to their children and that both parents, where safety is not an issue, should be allowed to play as positive a part in their children's lives as possible. I am not a lawyer—I am only married to one—but, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, Amendment No. 39 would be better placed in guidance.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, this is such an important group of amendments that I cannot resist just saying a few quick words on it. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has insisted, promoting welfare is crucial. Some time ago my noble friend Lord Northbourne and I had rather hoped that citizenship would deal with responsible parenting and the promotion of it, and that it would be a crucial part of educating the next generation in what they should expect when they are parents, not just what they should expect from their parents after they have been in conflict with them. So it is about not what children expect their parents to do for them but what they expect to do as parents.
	I very much hope that this good definition, which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the other noble Lords who tabled Amendment No. 11 have put forward, can be used, although perhaps not in the Bill. When we consider the time we were parents, did we do it right? Did we bring up our children in the best possible way? There was not much guidance in those days for ordinary parents. We are talking here about those who we know have got problems and are damaged, as my noble friend has said. I support the intentions behind these amendments and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to incorporate what has been said in his reply.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, this is a wide and varied group of amendments, and I shall do my best to respond to the very many points that have been raised. On Amendment No. 10, spoken to in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lord Judd, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international treaty, which is signed and ratified by the United Kingdom. As such, the UK has an obligation under international law to ensure that the rights set out in the convention are given effect. This obligation does not rely on any specific provision in domestic legislation, but exists entirely independently. In practice, UK law often goes further than the convention requires, as the description of child's rights in the UNCRC is set out in very broad terms.
	The Government take implementation of the convention seriously. Since ratification of the convention in 1991, they have pursued implementation through legislation and initiatives, including the Children Act 1989, the Children Act 2004, the Every Child Matters initiative and, most recently, the Children's Plan, published at the end of last year by my department. All those programmes are steadily improving the well-being and outcomes for all children and therefore the fuller realisation of their UNCRC rights.
	In respect of the new duty in question, the Secretary of State's duty to promote the well-being of children already encompasses the principles of the UNCRC and the duty as it stands creates an additional legislative vehicle through which the Secretary of State will carry out activities which implement the convention. However, in keeping with the UK's approach to implementation at large, we do it through the totality of our activity rather than through individual legislative provisions, and we would not wish to depart from that established practice.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 on supportive parenting tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I appreciate that the intention of these amendments is to assist those working with parents and children to be able to explain authoritatively the significance of parenting and the responsibilities that accompany parenthood. I also understand that these amendments have been proposed in particular to respond to those parents specifically who are failing to take seriously their parental responsibilities and who may benefit from targeted support and challenge in this area. These are aims which we entirely support but, as a number of noble Lords have said in their contributions, we are not persuaded that changes to primary legislation are the right way forward. Most parents do not need the assistance of the state in telling them how to bring up their children. However, we fully accept that some parents do need advice and assistance, and we are steadily improving the quantity and quality of the advice and assistance being made available to vulnerable parents and their children. That is why, for example, we are looking at the principle behind the red book, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which is given to every parent by their health visitor to track their child's health development through the first years of life, and we are exploring whether we could use that document to give more advice and guidance.
	It is also in recognition that some parents, particularly young parents, need more help that we have allocated £30 million from this year to expand family nurse partnerships, enhancing the principle of the health visitor by providing intensive nurse-led home visiting for vulnerable first-time young parents in England until the child is two years old, well beyond the provision typically provided at the moment by health visitors. Nurses build close, supportive relationships with families and guide inexperienced teenage mothers and fathers to adopt healthier lifestyles, improve their parenting skills and become self-sufficient.
	In addition, to help every parent to do their best by their child, we are allocating £34 million over the next three years to ensure that there will be at least two expert parenting advisers in every local authority, and we are expanding school-based parent support advisers. Moreover, just today my department and the Department of Health have jointly published updated guidance on the Child Health Promotion Programme which is for PCTs, local authorities and practice-based commissioners, including health visitors. This is a single programme from pregnancy and early years through to adulthood, and today's revised guidance focuses on pregnancy and the first years of life. It sets out that on offer to every family is a programme of screening tests, immunisations, developmental reviews and information and guidance to support parenting and healthy choices. The programme will ensure that each family receives support that is appropriate to their needs, with the most vulnerable families receiving intensive interventions and co-ordinated support packages.
	Our long-term commitment to supporting parenting through programmes of the kind I have set out—I could describe many others—is the reason why the Government have made it clear in Clause 7(3) that as part of meeting the general duty to promote the well-being of children, the Secretary of State may carry out,
	"activities in connection with parenting".
	That is precisely to meet the objectives set out by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
	Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 propose to set out in statute the responsibilities of parenthood. As the House is aware, we considered this issue at length in Grand Committee on 17 January. At the end of that debate I undertook that the Government would consider the issue and come back on Report with their view as to whether there is a case for further amendment to the Act on the lines suggested and in line with the practice in Scotland. At the specific suggestion of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the Government have sought the views of the president of the Family Division and through him other senior judges with experience of family cases, as well as that of members of the Family Justice Council. The common view of these experienced practitioners is that there have been no difficulties for them in managing cases using the current wording of Section 3 of the 1989 Act which defines parental responsibility as meaning,
	"all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property".
	On the contrary, concerns were expressed by judges in particular that a fuller definition such as that proposed here might cause difficulties. This view is summed up in a letter of advice sent to me by the president of the Family Division, Sir Mark Potter, saying that the proposed amendment is,
	"neither necessary nor helpful".
	The president goes on to say that,
	"to introduce and define a new concept of the responsibilities of parenthood in the form of amended Section 8(4)(a) will create scope for argument and confusion in an area in which none of the many judges I have canvassed at all levels has ever found the existing definition to present any practical difficulties".
	The advice of the president could not be clearer, and I simply commend it to the House.
	Finally, Amendment No. 40, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seeks to place on those acquiring parental responsibility through the making of residence orders under Section 8 of the Act the additional responsibility of having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since the obligations under the UNCRC fall to the Government as the signatory state party, it is not appropriate for a duty to have regard to international obligations which bite on Governments rather than individual citizens to be imposed on a narrow group of private citizens who, through seeking to promote the welfare of children known to them, apply for residence orders under Section 8 of the Act. But of course we accept the responsibilities of the convention in so far as they apply to the Government.
	The noble Baroness also asked me about the promotion of public awareness of the UNCRC, which is an important issue. I am glad to be able to tell her that our support for promoting this awareness is not in name only. My department is providing funding to UNICEF for its highly respected Rights Respecting Schools initiative which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. Funding of some £181,000 in the current financial year is being provided, and £178,000 in 2008-09. UNICEF has piloted the Rights Respecting Schools award in over 100 schools, and my department is seeking to scale up this activity in clusters of schools which can act as best practice models for others. We accept our responsibilities in this area and we are providing funding to see that public awareness is increased. I hope that that will have the desired effect.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation of what the Government are doing, but can he confirm whether they are considering incorporating the words as laid out in Amendment No. 11 in the guidance resulting from the Bill in terms of attitudes and behaviours that should be looked for in parents rather than it simply being a concept incorporated in other pieces of guidance that go out to different professionals? What concerned us as we were looking at the wording of this amendment was the need for a clear, consistent and relatively simple, positive message about what parents are expected to do. I can see clearly why the courts, which often deal with the problems that result from people not having done something, would like to find that they are not shackled by something which cannot be proven, such as attitudes and behaviours. The educational role of the guidance behind the Bill must be very important indeed for those who are likely to implement it.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are certainly seeking to ensure that the elements which form part of the definition of supportive parenting are promoted in guidance. I hope that gives the noble Baroness the assurance she is seeking, but what I cannot say is that that precise definition is one that we will seek to put in guidance.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, would the noble Lord please repeat what he has said because I did not hear it?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we shall certainly to ensure that the elements which form part of the definition of supportive parenting are reflected in the guidance. But I cannot give a commitment to promoting in that guidance precisely the words set out in the amendment.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I am glad that the Government accept the intention of the amendment. The trouble is that they have not given me any opening to take forward what I believe to be a very important issue, and listening to the noble Lord's brief, I have the feeling that the Government have not really taken on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to. I do not think that I would need to divide the House if the noble Lord could say that he is prepared to produce draft guidance or an indication of what the guidance will be. We could then decide whether to bring the issue back at Third Reading.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am happy to write to the noble Lord before Third Reading to set out more fully our thinking on this matter. I hope that that will be helpful to him.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. In that case I will withdraw the amendment, but consider whether to bring it back at Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
	Clause 8 [Provision of accommodation and maintenance for children who are looked after by a local authority]:

Baroness Massey of Darwen: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Clause 8, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) In fulfilling their duty under this section, a local authority shall consider the welfare of the child to be paramount."

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 37. I remember saying at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill that I looked forward to working for the benefit of children with colleagues of all parties because it is the welfare of children that is paramount and not political division. That has happened and it has been very gratifying. Significant changes have been made by the Government, which is also gratifying.
	We have visited the issue of relative and friend carers before and I thank my noble friend the Minister for his correspondence, for his flow charts and diagrams, which are very clear, and for conversations. I am grateful to him and his team for trying to reach satisfactory conclusions, but I do not feel that we are quite there yet and I would like a little more detail.
	We will be able to tackle the problems faced by family and friend carers only if the laws are changed or firm guidance is issued to local authorities and only if carers know what it all means and are drawn into the system. We need consistent criteria and adherence to specific rules to do the best for children. I would prefer the changes to be in law, but clear and firm guidance may do it. This Government have done much for children and families—probably more than any other—and this anomaly in relation to family and friend carers needs to be, and can be, sorted out.
	During our consideration of the Bill, expectations for family and friend carers have been raised not only in the children plan but in the recent drug strategy, one of whose key strategy actions is to,
	"support kin carers such as grandparents caring for the children of substance-misusing parents, by exploring extensions to the circumstances in which local authorities can make payments to carers of children classified as 'in need', backed up by improved information for carers and guidance for local authorities".
	Newspaper headlines followed this up with statements such as, "Grandparents to be paid for looking after children". That is not quite true. Grandparents, after the initial excitement about all this, are now thinking that this may be much of the same and entirely down to local authorities deciding their status and that of their grandchildren. As we have said before, many of these carers have had bad experiences.
	We heard in Committee examples of how local authorities are inconsistent in how they treat relative and friend carers, although there is good practice about. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke of a relative being persuaded not to become a foster carer and then not to become a special guardian. That was all to save money, of course, but how short sighted it was.
	The outcomes for children placed in the care of relatives and friends are often better than the outcomes for those fostered by strangers. How much better would these outcomes be if those carers had more support and spent less time struggling to get financial and other help from local services? We all know that a child who is well looked after is much less likely to get into trouble with the law, get involved with drugs or get pregnant while a teenager. It is a false economy to deny payments to support a child while he or she is young. This false economy will of course rebound.
	I spoke last week at two conferences, one on drugs and diversity and one on grandparents as carers. I heard from several grandparents emotional and emotive speeches about their cases. My files are full of case studies of relatives and friends who have been denied access to help and support. One grandparent whose daughter died from a drug overdose took charge of three children. She is still, after several years, trying to get decent accommodation. She said:
	"Every day there is a mountain to climb. When I should be reading to my grandson I find myself writing some letter to try to get support for me and the kids".
	There are many examples of relatives and friends who have given up work and pension rights to be carers. Many now live in real poverty. One grandparent said that she had not been able to send her grandson to school because he had no suitable shoes. What era are we living in when a carer is destined for poverty?
	I have been told that some local authorities define family and friend care as a private arrangement. You cannot have a private arrangement with someone who is dead, as many sons or daughters are when a grandparent takes over.
	I asked the child health mapping programme whether children of relative and friend carers came up on its local surveys. Of course they do not, so who is in charge here? These carers are not trying to cheat the system to get money; they are trying to do a good caring job. Surely a prompt assessment of a case, with follow-up, would eliminate any malpractice and protect the child. This would be better than leaving people struggling with a system that they feel cheats them and stands in the way of their caring for their children as they would wish. An NHS slogan says, "Adding life to years and years to life". That is not true in the case of many grandparent carers. I know that judgments have been made against local authorities in cases involving not paying until an assessment is made and in cases of other payments to grandparents and other carers. Why is there such inconsistency?
	What is needed—this is the nub of my argument—is a system whereby when a child comes into the care of relatives or friends, the carers are immediately advised as to their options and counselled. This is not quite covered in correspondence with the Minister. The carer may become a local authority foster carer and be assessed or they may choose other routes such as special guardianship. Whatever the decision, they should be advised honestly on the financial and other support implications and not be bullied into the cheapest option. Becoming a local authority foster carer would clearly be more financially beneficial, but I accept that that might not suit everyone.
	While those decisions are being made and assessed, it must be clearly understood and communicated that there will be financial support so that the children do not suffer. This requires instruction to local authorities, a named person to deal with the cases and clear information to the relatives and friends, taking into account that they may be grieving, stressed or disoriented. In the long term, this could save a great deal of money and would undoubtedly have better outcomes for children. We could also share and learn from the good practice that already exists. I beg to move.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 37, the only amendment to which I have attached my name, as I believe fervently that we have to do something about this issue.
	We discussed this matter in great detail in Committee. I do not wish to repeat those arguments or the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, but I will say something about how you have to change practice at the coal face rather than merely hoping that things will happen. We have all had a number of letters from grandparents with heartbreaking stories about their wish to care for their grandchildren and either losing the opportunity or being driven into poverty by the experience. I know that the Government have a strong policy towards kinship care, but the problem and the trick seem to be how we manage to protect the children by giving support to grandparents and how we make government policy happen on the ground.
	Having spent most of my life trying to get organisational change, I know that, in a situation where you cannot get compliance by encouragement, you have to have a different framework. There are two key issues. First, although we would like local authorities to be principle driven, most are resource driven. If you look at any area of their work in social care at the present time, you will find that, every time we raise the issue of resources, the Government tell us that millions more have been poured into a particular issue, whereas on the ground difficult issues are being resource driven. This is one of those issues.
	Secondly, on the ground, people set their own expectations. If they have been working with a family, have difficulty with it and then have to receive the children into care, or if there has been a traumatic experience within a family, such as death—social workers, like the rest of us, find bereavement difficult to take—often social workers will think that a separate placement is more beneficial for the children. That is because we have not yet helped most practitioners to know how to use research findings in relation to their work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, pointed out, research shows that children in kinship placements do better than those with even the most excellent foster parents found by the local authority.
	On the resource-driven issue, we need to set up a framework that says that kinship care is a priority. The framework that the noble Baroness has outlined would ensure that these people were assessed as local authority foster parents and then given the opportunity to look at alternative options, because they will need guidance in finding their way through our confused benefits system. I am a great believer in devolving responsibility to local authorities, but you cannot leave this just with the local authority unless there is either something in the Bill—that is what I would like to see, which is why I support the amendment—or extremely positive regulation and guidance. If there is not, we will see no movement on this issue.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 37. We are all grateful to the Minister for the full letter that he wrote to us, setting out responses to some of the questions that we raised, particularly so far as I was concerned. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, the research shows how valuable kinship care can be in reining in the damage to challenging children, especially given that the children's needs may be volatile, intermittent and flexible. There may well be a revolving-door situation for some of those families that are under strain. Foster care with, so to speak, professional strangers may not be the most appropriate way forward for those children. It can be appropriate but, where there is no history of abuse but rather a history of neglect, all the research suggests that kinship placements are much more satisfactory for the long-term health and well-being of the child.
	The problem is that the grandparent needs a resource to be able to provide kinship care. Children do not come cheap. My noble friend's letter suggested just how inappropriate central government financing structures are for such children. The grandparent may not know whether the child will be with them for two months, six months or six years. They need financial help; they will almost certainly need a lump sum immediately for beds and so on, as well as some form of income attached to the child for their maintenance.
	Although in his letter my noble friend describes perfectly accurately—I would expect no less—the existing system, none of it gives me any comfort that the problem that I have identified will be addressed. It is true that the Social Fund can make grants through the community grant scheme to individuals, but very seldom, so far as I am aware, has that money gone to grandparents in these situations. The budget is cash limited and the preference is for budgetary loans, repaid over time, in order to acquire white goods. It is not appropriate where a grant for grandparents is needed and I know from my own experience that such grants are very rare. So that does not help.
	What about income? After six or eight weeks, the child benefit book may go to the grandparent, if that is not contested by the natural parents—and often in such circumstances it is contested by a parent who is reluctant to give up even the modest income that comes with that benefit book. But let us suppose that that goes across; it is still a fairly low-value benefit. It is going up to £20 and we are delighted about that, but it is still fairly low.
	The two high-value benefits that are available are either the child tax credit, which is the tax credit payment for children, or the childcare tax credit, which is what allows a registered childminder to be paid while the parent goes out to work. Neither of those will be easily available to the grandparent. The child tax credit requires a new claim to be made by the grandparent, which will be at odds with the existing child tax payments to the natural parent, where the assumption is that they will run for 12 months. There will be serious delays and probable difficulties about the evidence of where the primary carer is.
	What about the childcare tax credit? Given that we are talking about a grandparent, there is no provision, even if that grandparent is an experienced foster carer, for them to look after their grandchildren solely. The tax credit would have to go to the next-door neighbour, or a stranger, who would be paid to do what the grandparent would prefer to do herself but is not, by law, allowed to. The grandparent falls right down the middle of the benefit system. Although my noble friend describes the structure fairly, not one penny of the money available will necessarily help the grandparent to finance the child maintenance that is necessary if that child is not to have the additional struggles of being deprived of financial support, as well as the stress and strain that they may suffer from the effects of some form or other of parental neglect.
	If, as apparently is the case, my noble friend cannot seek to produce any central government resource to help grandparents in this situation, the only other avenue is the local authority. I am not at all confident that local authorities would manage, incidentally. As the noble Baroness said, they, too, are resource driven and the issue would be bandied to and fro between the two tiers. Is it central or local government's responsibility? The result would be that the grandparent would still get nothing. I know, having accompanied a delegation with my noble friend Lord McKenzie on some of these issues, how many grandparents were forced to give up kinship care because they could not get any financial support. Those children were then placed permanently in the care system, so that the possibilities to rehabilitate the children with their natural parents in years to come were lost for ever. That is very sad.
	I hope—indeed, I am confident—that my noble friend is aware that there is a real lacuna of financial support with appropriate flexibility for grandparents in this situation coming from central government. It has not been identified, responded to or addressed. In that absence, local authorities must act if central government will not. It is for that reason that I support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, after those three brilliant speeches, I have nothing additional to say except that, as a patron of the Grandparents' Association and a practising grandfather, I strongly support what the three noble Baronesses have said.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, we have been strong supporters of what the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has been seeking to achieve throughout consideration of the Bill. Like her, all other noble Lords who have spoken and the Government, we believe passionately in kinship care. The amendment would solve many of the problems that the Minister outlined in Committee and on recommitment. I get the feeling that the Government do not oppose it on principle but were dissatisfied by the legislative mechanism in the previous amendments, so I hope that these amendments will find a better reception. Our support has not wavered. I will have one more bash at this, although I know that the Minister has already said that he will take it away and look at it: if we want to ensure that local authorities look first to kinship care, as they should, then please can we make it a key performance indicator?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, in the past we have supported these amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and we support them again on this occasion. They have been redrafted to meet some of the objections made by the Minister on previous occasions. We believe that they embody a good principle—that when a friend or relative takes on the responsibility of looking after the child and saves the local authority all the costs and work of trying to find foster parents and make other arrangements, it is only reasonable for them to receive help and support from the local authority. We urge the Minister to find some way of incorporating the amendments in the Bill.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lady Massey for raising the issue of family and friends carers. My officials and I have had productive conversations with her and I hope that I can put on the record some points that meet most of her concerns.
	Our overarching policy is to ensure a more consistent and transparent approach by every local authority to supporting relatives who care for children, whether the children have looked-after status or not. We intend to do that through a combination of the legislative changes that we are making in the Bill and the regulations and statutory guidance that we will be issuing to local authorities once the Bill is passed.
	We want to ensure, first, that placement with family and friends is considered as an option for every looked-after child. That is why we are changing the Children Act 1989 by substituting new Section 22C for Section 23. Subsection (7)(a) of new Section 22C places local authorities under a duty to give preference to placements with related carers over any other placement option. Secondly, as set out in the Care Matters White Paper, we will issue statutory guidance to local authorities that will require them to publish a transparent and accessible policy for providing support to related carers, so that carers will know precisely what support they can expect, whether or not the child for whom they are caring has looked-after status.
	Going to the heart of my noble friend's concerns is the fact that, where a local authority provides a child with accommodation by making an arrangement for them to live with an individual, that child is deemed to be looked after by the local authority and the carer with whom the child is placed must be an approved local authority foster parent, whether or not they are related to the child or otherwise connected with them.
	All carers with whom the child is placed by the local authority are therefore local authority foster parents regardless of prior relationship to the child and are therefore already covered by all existing legislation and regulation relating to foster parents, including—this is a key point—provisions of Section 49 of the Children Act 2004 relating to payments for foster parents. Local authorities' policies on financial payment or other support must therefore not discriminate between related carers and others simply on the ground of prior relationship to the child. We will make this crystal clear in our guidance after the passage of the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 deal with emergency placements. We recognise that, when an emergency arises, the person best placed to care for a child is often someone who is already known to them, whether it is another family member or a neighbour. However, that person is unlikely to have prior approval as a local authority foster parent. This situation is provided for at the moment in Regulation 38 of the Fostering Services Regulations 2002, which enables a child to be placed with a relative after preliminary checks to ensure the child's safety but pending full, formal approval as a foster carer.
	We intend to use the new powers that we are taking through Clause 8 to regulate the approval of local authority foster carers to replicate the effect of Regulation 38 so that related carers can be granted temporary approval after basic preliminary checks have been carried out. The checks are likely to include, as now, a requirement to interview the carer, inspect the accommodation and obtain details of others living at the address. This will improve current safeguards for children placed in emergency. The effect of current Section 23(3) is that any person with whom a child is placed is a local authority foster parent, which means that there is no immediate legal consequence if the carer is not approved within six weeks. However, under new Section 22C, a carer is a local authority foster parent only if approved as such. As I have said, we will provide for a temporary approval status, which will be time limited. If the temporary approval expires before full approval is granted, the placement cannot continue; otherwise, a local authority will be in breach of primary legislation.
	The purpose of the proposed legal change is to ensure that local authorities prioritise the need to complete approvals in time and improve the safeguarding of these vulnerable children. It is also to ensure that family carers receive all the financial allowances and support to which they are entitled as foster carers with full approval. They can receive that financial allowance and support from the moment that they are given temporary approval.
	We recognise that the current six-week limit on emergency placements under Regulation 38 causes some difficulties. This has been raised with us by the regulator during informal consultations on the regulatory changes that we need to make. Before making a final decision on any change to the emergency placement period, we need to undertake a formal consultation with all stakeholders. Setting the appropriate period is a matter of detail that is more suited for regulations than for primary legislation, but we need to strike a balance between the need to keep the process for approving relative carers as quick as possible and the need to ensure that the approvals process is rigorous and safeguards children. Within that overall balance, we are open-minded on whether the current six-week limit on emergency placements is appropriate or whether we should review it.
	I hope that I have met most of the points that my noble friend set out. I reiterate that we give priority to the needs of related carers. For very many children, it is the most appropriate form of care. We want to see that proper support is available to carers in that position.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered reply and others who supported the amendments. Issues around benefits and deficiencies in systems have again been highlighted with great expertise and potential loopholes have been exposed.
	I shall read the Minister's speech carefully. I was glad to hear him talk about crystal clarity in guidance and temporary approval status before a person can become a fully fledged foster carer. I would have liked to hear more on a named person being available to see through the morass of terrible problems with the system that people report. I have no intention of dividing the House on this issue, but I look forward to further responses from the Minister at a later stage—perhaps in other conversations with him and his team.
	The Bill has still to go to another place. I am sure that, if all is not considered well, colleagues will lobby their Member of Parliament to exert influence on the Government and local authorities to sort out the system to their own satisfaction. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Clause 8, page 7, line 28, after "education" insert "or training"

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. These are minor amendments, intended to ensure technical clarity. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 tidy up drafting. Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 47, 48, 52 and 63 are consequential amendments to the Children Act 1989, reflecting the effect of Clause 8 of this Bill.
	I point to one amendment of significance, however. I have reflected further on points raised from all sides of the House about the requirement to ensure that determining the most appropriate placement for a looked-after child does not disrupt the child's education, and on whether this requirement should, as noble Lords suggested in Grand Committee, also include training. I have concluded that we should be consistent with the policy underlying the Education and Skills Bill. Therefore, Amendment No. 15 inserts "or training" in the appropriate place.
	The amendment will ensure that local authorities must take account of the effect of placement decisions on the activities of 16 to 18 year-olds who are not receiving formal education, but who benefit from on-the-job training, apprenticeships or similar work-based learning. This responds directly to concerns raised in the House, and I hope that it will be welcomed by noble Lords. I beg to move.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, the amendment is yet another example of the Minister listening and acting. We warmly welcome its inclusion in the Bill.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, will apprenticeships be covered by "training"?

Lord Adonis: Yes, my Lords.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Clause 8, page 7, line 41, after "2004" insert ", save that subsection (5) of that section shall apply in all cases"

Baroness Walmsley: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 35, which is about the same matter, and to Amendment No. 34.
	Amendment No. 34 refers to the delegated responsibility of foster parents. Since our debate in Grand Committee, I have had briefings claiming that, in practice, all is not as the Government think. The fostering plans are not making it clear to foster parents on what they can and cannot decide. Simple decisions still have to go up the line. I have tabled the amendment again to give the Government another opportunity to tell us what they propose to do to ensure that practice follows what they think is happening on the ground.
	Amendments Nos. 16 and 35 are about a duty to continue making fee payments to foster carers about whom allegations are being investigated, until such time as the matter has been settled. Since we debated this matter in Committee, I have heard that the Government timescales for the resolution of allegations set out in their Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance are routinely being missed. The emotional strain from the considerable length of time it takes to resolve some of these investigations has huge impact on some foster carers, which, when combined with the withdrawal of their income, can force them out of the valuable work for which they were trained. The amendment would protect foster carers from financial hardship, put pressure on local authorities to speed up the investigations and enable more foster carers to stay in the service once their names have, one hopes, been cleared.
	I have had a letter from a support group called FACT—Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers—which points out that a lot of the allegations are not made by the children and not while the child is with the carer. They are made by parents or other interested adults after the child has left care. This affects the unconnected children currently with that foster carer, since they have to be put elsewhere during the investigation. Many of these allegations are false. They come from a very chaotic population who use them to get back at society as a whole, yet it is the unfortunate accused individuals who suffer. While it is vital for the protection of children that all such allegations are properly investigated—I emphasise that—something must be done to speed things up to avoid penalising the innocent.
	When doctors, police officers and teachers are accused of unprofessional behaviour, they are suspended on full pay. Foster carers, who are paid very little in the first place, are suspended without pay, which is tantamount to finding them guilty before any conclusion has been reached. In this country you are innocent until proved guilty. It is a principle of justice on which we pride ourselves. Let us ensure that foster carers are also treated as innocent until something other is proved. I beg to move.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I was happy to add my name to Amendment No. 35 because, for us, it is about natural justice. Allegations are a constant fear for foster carers and vexatious allegations can be used as threats, although we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about safety. To face a false allegation is bad enough, but then to lose money—in some cases over a number of months—is no way to treat these much-needed and valuable people.
	I also support Amendment No. 34. We heard at the previous All-Party Group on Children last week how, for a child just to go on a school trip, foster carers have to get permission from the social worker, who then has to get permission from the line manager—each stage more removed from the child. Children in foster care are no different from other children and often ask about these things at the last minute. If they cannot go on the trip because the permission does not come in time, that further stigmatises the child.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I wish to make only a single point in addition to those already made. The only possible argument against the amendment is that it might cost money. I wonder whether the Government have assessed the savings that would be had in finding more foster parents more quickly.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I support the amendments—my name is attached to Amendment No. 34. We must make foster care more attractive if we are to live up to the aspirations of the Bill. Can the Minister give us an update on the numbers of foster carers? I understand that there is a shortage of 10,000 in the UK, which means that many children are placed in inappropriate placements. Foster carers often say to me, "I said I was ready to take a child with low needs. I hadn't had much experience of foster care or training, and I was given a child I later discovered had a dreadful history of neglect and a high level of need". What else can a social worker do when there is nowhere else to put the child? If we wish the best for these children, we must make foster care more attractive. The amendments would effectively do that, so I hope that the Minister can give them a sympathetic response.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, the proposal is in the interests of children. There is nothing like money to speed things up, and some of these hearings take an extraordinary length of time, during which we focus on the adults—the foster parents and those who have made allegations. The children may have made allegations but we have to remember that they are children at risk. The allegations may be true or not, but just as in other situations, it is important that the children are not seen as objects in the inquiry but that the process is speedy for their sake and everyone else's. That is another reason for supporting the amendment.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I also support the amendments. It is clear that we should not be treating foster parents differently from other groups suspended for such allegations. I also support the other amendment on the delegation of responsibility. We are increasingly wishing for and training our foster parents to be professional, and we should treat them as such.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, although the number of foster carers affected is small, I sympathise with the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and other noble Lords, that no foster carer should be penalised until the appropriate authority is satisfied that an allegation is well founded. Most fostering providers who continue to pay a fee during investigations also abide by this principle.
	For those foster carers whose fees are stopped, I recognise that that loss of income can add to an already very stressful situation and may contribute to a decision to leave fostering. We are happy to take this issue away to consider further what might be done, and we shall indicate our thinking as the Bill goes through another place. I am sorry that we cannot do it more rapidly than that but I hope that that commitment will give some satisfaction to your Lordships.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned the time taken to resolve investigations and the independent support available to foster carers. The guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children, which was published by the Government in 2006,
	"considers that it is reasonable to expect that 80 per cent of cases should be resolved within one month, 90 per cent within three months and all but the most exceptional cases ... within 12 months".
	However, evidence suggests that these timescales are not always met. The national minimum standards for fostering providers require them to make independent support available to their foster carers, but it appears that that requirement is not being met in all cases. I recognise that lengthy investigations without adequate independent support can add to the stress experienced by foster carers subject to an allegation, and I undertake also to consider this matter further to see what changes we might make to facilitate further improvements.
	On the delegation of responsibility, which is raised in the second amendment in the group, as I said when we debated the amendment previously, I recognise that a foster carer who may be with a foster child 24 hours a day is often in the best position to make decisions about that child. However, bearing in mind the complex circumstances of many foster children, it would be inappropriate for the Government to dictate when decisions can and cannot be delegated, and it is right that that is decided at a local level between the fostering provider and the foster carer in the light of all the circumstances of a particular child's case. Existing legislation and statutory guidance is already clear that local authorities should clarify with foster carers the extent to which responsibility is delegated to the carer.
	In the previous debate on this issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, acknowledged the case for decisions about delegation of responsibility to be made locally in the light of the particular circumstances of the child. I accept the point which she also made, however, that some foster carers remain confused about the decisions they have the authority to take. We have considered this matter carefully. The fostering services regulations require there to be a placement agreement before the provider places the child with the foster carer, but once the agreement is in place there is no legislative requirement for it to be reviewed. I recognise that if the content of the placement agreement is not reviewed, it may become out of date or forgotten, particularly where a placement is long term.
	I therefore suggest that the concerns underlying the noble Baroness's amendment could be addressed by an amendment to the fostering services regulations to require the placement agreement to be reviewed annually, or sooner if there is a substantive change in the circumstances of the placement. This would ensure that there is regular discussion between the provider and the foster carer about the delegation of decisions, allowing any concerns that the foster carer may have to be addressed. I undertake that we will consider this as part of our planned review of the fostering services regulations, which will be completed next year.
	On the basis of the commitments I have given, I hope that the noble Baronesses will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and other noble Lords throughout the House who expressed support for this group of amendments. I am particularly grateful for the Minister's concessions. We have clearly been successful in convincing him that more needs to be done as regards delegated responsibility. I was most interested in his suggestion that an annual review might give foster carers the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings, confusion or irrationalities about the original placement agreement.
	I am also most grateful for the Minister's commitment to have payments to foster carers raised in another place and to look for a solution that will ensure that the worst local authorities come up to the standards of the best. I acknowledge that the best continue to pay fees while allegations are being investigated and make all haste to get them cleared up as soon as possible. It is a pity that this matter cannot be settled in your Lordships' House, but I and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, to whom I am most grateful for her support on the amendment, will alert our colleagues in another place to it. We shall look out for what the Minister in another place proposes to address these matters. Let us hope that when the Bill comes back to us, they will have been settled satisfactorily. In the light of my gratitude for the solutions that the Minister proposed to meet these concerns, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Clause 8, page 8, line 22, at end insert—
	"(22FA) Accommodation with former foster parents
	The appropriate national authority may, by regulations, make provision about the arrangements for relevant children and former relevant children to live with former foster parents."

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, this amendment concerns a different matter altogether. Amendments Nos. 17 and 30 constitute two different ways of doing the same thing; that is, enabling young people leaving care to stay with their former foster parents on a stable, properly funded and regulated basis without being thrown into the hurly burly of adult services. Since I laid these amendments, the Fostering Network organisation that briefed me has been in communication with the Bill team. I am most grateful to it for the time it has taken to allay some of our concerns on this matter.
	An e-mail from a member of the Bill team lays out why my amendments may not be necessary. I apologise if I am pinching the Minister's speech. The e-mail states:
	"Following a further conversation with our legal advisors, I am writing to confirm that, as we discussed, there is no need for additional powers in the Children and Young Persons Bill to regulate this provision. Section 42 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (as amended by the Health and Social Care Bill), enables the Government to make regulations to provide for registration of those making arrangements for the placing of former relevant children with 'foster carers' If the Government decides, following the pilots enabling 18 to 21 year olds to stay with their foster carers, that regulation would be appropriate no further primary legislation would be needed to enable this. Were such arrangements to be regulated, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for Education, Children's Services and Skills would be the regulatory authority and inspect such arrangements. In respect of the pilots, we sent local authorities the invitation to tender for the Staying Put: 18+ Family Placement pilots in February with a view to running pilots in June 2008".
	I am very pleased about that confirmation and wish the pilot schemes a very fair wind. However, I chose not to withdraw the amendments because I wanted to give myself an opportunity to ask the Minister three questions about this issue.
	First, will he confirm that regulation via the Care Standards Act and the Health and Social Care Bill will enable support for placements for people between 18 and 21 to be dealt with by leaving care teams, and that foster carers will then remain within the fostering services rather than being transferred to adult services? Secondly, will the Government report annually on the number of young people remaining with their foster carers between 18 and 21 so that they can assess the increase in the number who choose to do that? Thirdly, given existing practice on this matter in some local authorities and in Northern Ireland, will they assess and report every year on whether the staying put pilots can be rolled out across the country at that point rather than waiting the full three years of the pilots before considering a roll-out? Some authorities are implementing many of these measures already and it would be a pity to have to wait three years if that is not considered necessary. I am most grateful to the Bill team for satisfying me on the main area of concern of these amendments. I hope that the Minister can clarify the small issues that remain. I beg to move.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, this rosy picture is not necessarily experienced on the ground. Work done on the transition of disabled children from children's to adult services shows that it can be very traumatic and underlines how important it is that they have stable continuing family circumstances. Very often disabled children do not have the capacity to understand what is happening to them when they are moved from one health service section to another and to have to move from one home to another in addition can be disastrous. The relevant process needs to be much faster.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, read out word for word my proposed response to her amendment. Therefore, she leaves me in a very difficult position because I have nothing to add to her remarks. However, she asked me three specific questions on the implementation of the staying put 18-plus family placement pilots. I was about to say that I was not in a position to give her an answer but I see that I am. The efficiency of my officials means that I can answer all three questions.
	Local authorities could run this service through leaving care teams. We shall consider reporting annually on the number of post-18s who stay with foster carers. We will share the findings for each year of the staying put pilots in an annual stocktake, which will give other authorities that wish to follow best practice in this area the opportunity to do so.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, and I certainly take on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said. I am very much reassured by what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 18:
	After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
	"General duty of local authority to secure sufficient accommodation
	After section 22F of the 1989 Act (which is inserted by section 8) insert—
	"22G General duty of local authority to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children
	(1) It is the general duty of a local authority to take steps that secure, so far as reasonably practicable, the outcome in subsection (2).
	(2) The outcome is that the local authority are able to provide the children mentioned in subsection (3) with accommodation that—
	(a) is within the authority's area; and(b) meets the needs of those children.
	(3) The children referred to in subsection (2) are those—
	(a) that the local authority looks after,(b) in respect of whom the authority are unable to make arrangements under section 22C(2), and(c) whose circumstances are such that it would be consistent with their welfare for them to be provided with accommodation that is in the authority's area.
	(4) In taking steps to secure the outcome in subsection (2), the local authority must have regard to the benefit of having—
	(a) a number of accommodation providers in their area that is, in their opinion, sufficient to secure that outcome; and(b) a range of accommodation in their area capable of meeting different needs that is, in their opinion, sufficient to secure that outcome.
	(5) In this section "accommodation providers" means—
	local authority foster parents; and
	children's homes in respect of which a person is registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000.""

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I have, throughout the course of our debates, stated our ambition to enhance the range, quality and choice of suitable placements for looked-after children, and I have outlined the steps that we are taking to improve local authority commissioning in order to do this. This goes hand in hand with our commitment to ensuring that more children are provided with accommodation in their local area and are only moved to a different area to meet their particular needs.
	As the Bill was originally drafted, Clause 8, by imposing a new duty on local authorities not to place out of area, with only a limited discretion to depart from it, would have had the effect of requiring local authorities to ensure that they had sufficient accommodation in their area to meet the needs of the children whom they look after. This would have delivered our policy intention, and further provision would have been unnecessary.
	However, in the light of recent government amendments to the requirements that local authorities must satisfy when making placement decisions, and the comments of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has shown his customary commitment to this cause, we now consider it necessary to introduce an explicit provision to require local authorities to plan and commission services properly.
	Amendment No. 18 therefore places a new general duty on the local authority that will require it to take steps to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, there is sufficient accommodation within its area to meet the needs of the children that it looks after. In meeting this duty, authorities will not have to take account of those children who can be placed with their parents or those for whom it would not be consistent with their welfare to be placed in area.
	By requiring local authorities to consider the benefits of having a number of accommodation providers, the amendment makes it clear that they cannot fulfil this duty by presuming that they can provide the sufficient level of accommodation entirely by themselves. In addition, it highlights the need to have a range of accommodation that is sufficient to meet the different needs of children, who as we all know have diverse needs.
	This amendment has been tabled specifically to meet the concerns that have been raised in earlier debates, and I hope that it will be agreeable to the House. I beg to move.

The Earl of Listowel: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 18, Amendment No. 19:
	After Clause 8, line 13, at end insert—
	"(aa) that the local authority supports in accordance with section 23B(8) (additional functions of the responsible authority in respect of relevant children),"

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, briefly, I strongly welcome the amendment that the Minister has moved, and I thank him for his kind words. Many charities have called for this, including the Fostering Network, and I am delighted that the Government have brought forward the amendment.
	I will speak to my two amendments, Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, which touch somewhat on the debate that we have just had on transition from care. Amendment No. 19 would extend the duty to 16 and 17 year-olds who are leaving care. Those young people should normally be staying in care until the age of 18, but I understand that most still do not do so. Consequently, there is an urgent need to ensure that there is an adequate local supply of supported accommodation. Sadly, these children can still on occasion be placed in a red light district or bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
	Will the Minister consider extending the duty to former relevant children; that is young care leavers of 18 and over? They, too, often face hurdles to obtaining appropriate accommodation. Will the Minister also consider the needs of young adult care leavers in full-time education who need accommodation in the university holidays? If it would be helpful, I would gladly table an amendment on Third Reading to allow the Minister to describe his plans for improving access to suitable accommodation for young adult care leavers.
	Amendment No. 20 obliges local authorities to produce a plan for how they intend to provide for relevant children. It would be a mechanism for encouraging local authorities to think of the needs of care leavers strategically; it would be a lever to encourage improvement. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I give a brief but warm welcome to government Amendment No. 18 which, in my view, goes to the heart of the matter. In the new clause, the local authorities are under a general duty to provide as far as reasonably practicable the necessary accommodation for looked-after children in their own area and meeting the children's needs. By this means, we will establish a more stable environment for those children, and I hope that we will reduce the number of cases in which children have been frequently moved. I recognise that the clause is drafted in such a way as to make possible accommodation for a looked-after child outside the local authority's area where that is right for the welfare of the child, and that is correct. The new clause reflects some of the discussion in Committee, which I was extremely interested in. I warmly welcome the Government's positive response.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I simply want to ask the Minister a question. Does he consider it appropriate that an older young person in specialist disability accommodation, during holidays, having no family to return to, should be returned to an old people's home where there is no stimulation, when that young person could stay in the specialist accommodation but the cost is considerably higher? Therefore, the local authority may place the child nearer to what may have been the geographical borough, but it is certainly not nearer to what the child considers to be home. We need some more clarity about some of the emotional impact of what people perceive as home and about some of the answers which, again, are resource-driven.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have a modest concern about the amendment. It is very often the case that children who are in care are also children who are in trouble. They are often in trouble because of emotional insecurity and lack of social skills, and they have found their only fulfilment in joining a gang. If you put them back into the same area, the first thing that will happen is that the gang is going to get at them, and they will be back in the gang, and within minutes they will be in trouble or in prison. Surely, there must be quite a lot of cases where it would be better for the child to have secure and appropriate accommodation in an area that is far away from the home area where all the trouble started.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches, we welcome the amendments, and we are particularly pleased that the Government have listened to the arguments that noble Lords have rehearsed on two previous occasions and have come forward with the amendment on making diversity of placements more easily available. We also support the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, which spell out these duties even more explicitly than they are spelt out in the government amendment. In particular, we support Amendment No. 20. Finding foster carers is not easy, and many local authorities struggle to find suitable placements. The requirement to make these within the area will be difficult to meet and will require long-term planning and time and resources to build up what will be in effect a bank of possible placements.
	I have three questions for the Minister, which stem from some of the reservations of local authorities; the Local Government Association has asked us to raise these questions with the Minister. First, in relation to timing, will the Government work with the LGA and other sector representatives to determine an appropriate lead-in time for the amendment? Secondly, on funding, resources will be necessary, and it will cost local authorities money or resources to develop new placements within the area. Will the Government agree to work with the LGA to develop an impact assessment of what resources will be necessary? Thirdly, in relation to enforcement, the legislation, guidance and regulations implementing the amendment will need to be developed and will need to have a degree of flexibility so that local authorities retain the freedom to make placements outside the area where the needs of the child are best met by such a placement. I think that we all agree that there are some occasions when that is so. Will the Government work with the LGA and other sector representatives to help to develop the flexibility in the regulations?

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, we very much welcome Amendment No. 18 and appreciate that the Minister has listened yet again to the concerns of noble Lords, especially the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the debates on accommodation. We especially welcome that this is an explicit duty. We also appreciate that safeguards take into account those living with their parents, and those for whom it would be inconsistent with their welfare to be placed in the area—the very children whom the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke of who may be involved in gangs, have been horribly sexually abused, or have been trafficked.
	It is good that there has been recognition of the importance of diversity of provision. Different children have different needs, and the move to ensure that local authorities must provide a range of accommodation for a range of needs is welcome. However, how far does that extend? Does it require local authorities to provide for every possible need? Can the Minister give a clear guarantee that children with acute and complex needs will be able to receive the most appropriate care placement, including an out-of-area specialist setting where necessary? Very much on the lines of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, I say that local authorities are concerned that that will be very costly. Does it come with any extra money?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their general welcome for this new duty on local authorities to secure sufficient accommodation. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Morris, made points about consultation with local authorities on the scope of the duty and how we would expect it to be implemented. I undertake that we will continue to work with local authorities to support improvements in commissioning across children's services, and to engage them in determining the commencement and implementation arrangements of the provision as part of the implementation of Care Matters. That consultation will include the matters set out by both noble Baronesses. The statutory guidance on the new provision will be developed in consultation with local authorities and other stakeholders, and subject to a full impact assessment, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was concerned about 16 and 17 year-olds who had left care but were entitled to leaving-care services. We recognise that supporting that group of vulnerable young people is crucial, which is why we brought in the duty to provide them with accommodation through the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. From a legal point of view, it is problematic to include that group in the current general duty, so I cannot propose to bring them into the scope of my proposal. However, I recognise that he raises an important point about that group, and I will take the matter away to consider further in the expectation that we will be able to address it through statutory guidance.
	With regard to Amendment No. 20, a range of obligations on health and local authorities already relate to planning and publishing information about their plans, including a duty to undertake joint strategic needs assessments and a requirement to produce a children and young people's plan. We expect information about the local authority's assessment of local needs for accommodation, and its plans for securing sufficient accommodation to meet need, to form part of the wider needs assessment and the statutory plan. I hope that those existing means of consultation and the existing plans that have to be produced meet the concerns of the noble Earl.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply and encouraging response, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 19, as an amendment to Amendment No. 18, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 20, as an amendment to Amendment No. 18, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 18 agreed to.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 21:
	After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
	"Recording the child's wishes and feelings
	(1) The 1989 Act is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 17 (provision of sevices to children) after subsection (4A)(a) insert —
	"(aa) record in writing the child's wishes and feelings; or(ab) record in writing why it has not been reasonably practicable to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings; and".
	(3) In section 20 (provision of accommodation for children: general) after subsection (6)(b) insert—
	"(c) record in writing the child's wishes and feelings; or(d) record in writing why it has not been reasonably practicable to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings.".
	(4) In section 22 (general duty of local authority in relation to children looked after by them) after subsection (4) insert—
	"(4A) Following an ascertainment under subsection (4)(a) the local authority shall record in writing the child's wishes and feelings or why it has not been reasonably practicable to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings."
	(5) In section 47 (provision of services to children) after subsection (5a)(a) insert—
	"(aa) record in writing the child's wishes and feelings; or(ab) record in writing why it has not been reasonably practicable to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings; and"."

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, noble Lords will recognise that I moved this amendment in Committee. I bring it back following further concerns and briefings from the Children's Rights Alliance, Participation Works and a range of children's organisations. The amendment introduces a mandatory duty on local authorities to record the child's wishes and feelings—or, where that has not been possible, the reasons for that—in relation to the provision of services for children, including accommodation and all decisions made by the local authority with respect to looked-after children.
	In Committee the Minister suggested that the amendment was unnecessary, as the integrated children's system includes opportunities for local authority social workers to record the views of children throughout their care experience. However, there is no statutory duty on the local authority to ensure that children's wishes and feelings are recorded. There is surely a clear need for enforcing that aspect of practice, which would correlate with the requirements under Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that grant all children the right to express their views and for them to be given due weight in all matters concerning them.
	Research on serious case reviews undertaken by the Open University and the University of East Anglia, and published recently by the DCSF, found evidence of poor practice in the production of chronologies of the child's life history and contact with agencies. It also found that too often social workers focus not on the child, but on their relationship with adults. One extract from a serious case overview illustrates the depth of the problem:
	"There is no information that the children were spoken with. Sibling 1 had just turned 16 and Sibling 2 was 14 years old and both were fully able to discuss issues of physical chastisement within the family. The accounts from the older children would have been able to inform a decision about speaking with the younger siblings who, at age 5 years and 4 years, would also have been able to express if they were being hit around the head in answer to direct questions".
	It may be no surprise that the children themselves do not feel that their views are adequately taken into account. An online survey of children conducted by the DCSF in autumn 2006 found that nearly a quarter of respondents who had a social worker—23 per cent, 604 children—said that they felt that the social workers "never" took their views into account. Inspectors of foster care services have also noted that children do not always feel confident that their views are listened to; they had concerns about the structure of meetings and found aspects of the documentation and recordings unhelpful. A major 2002 consultation with children in care found that approximately one-third felt that they had not been listened to.
	In a letter to directors of children's services and chairs of local safeguarding children boards written in February, the Minister, Kevin Brennan MP, himself admitted the importance of obtaining and taking into account the wishes and feelings of children. It is clear that the current system does not sufficiently address that problem. Moreover, the impact of the integrated children's system remains unknown. An evaluation of the ICS was commissioned as early as 2004. A first draft was received by the DCSF in 2006 but has not yet been published. The latest available public information from DCSF officials suggests that many local authorities are falling behind in administering the system.
	The more effective system of consultation that this amendment would introduce would tackle a real problem in the care of looked-after children and particularly help children under the age of 16, who government statistics show are much less likely to make their wishes known spontaneously. It would also help disabled children, who all too often have little family contact.
	I hope that the noble Lord will be able on this occasion to give a more encouraging reply to these real concerns, which continue to be raised. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I support this very important amendment. It seems to me that the child must be at the centre of our considerations all the time in working out what solutions, what programmes and what approaches will be most appropriate. That is absolutely indispensable in being certain that we are hearing the voice of the child. As I think I put it in Grand Committee, we must try to avoid a situation in which, even inadvertently, the child becomes an object that is being discussed. The child is a human being with all its personality, its potential and, yes, its rights—I use the modern language. Even more creatively than that, I think we could use the word "spiritual". In that sense, the voice of the child is crucial. The amendment and the exemplary way in which it has been moved spell out the importance of this matter and reassurance on it by my noble friend is vital.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I, too, have put my name to the amendment. I continue to support it as I did in Grand Committee. I wish to draw the attention of noble Lords to one example of where there is already a duty to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings. It must surely be on the record that that is when a review is taking place—although, in fact, that is not happening.
	I refer to the report from the Children's Commissioner, to which I referred in an earlier amendment, about the way that the London Borough of Hillingdon deals with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. On page 7 of that report the commissioner pointed out:
	"Interviews with independent reviewing officers and examination of the files showed that necessary documents were not always available at the child's review when significant decisions were being made about the care of the child".
	That included the child's wishes and feelings. One of the Children's Commissioner's recommendations, as a result of his findings, is that,
	"a full record of any discussion is placed on the child's file. A summary decision letter is not adequate".
	That means there should be a full record of the child's views from the IRO's interviews with the child. This should take place at the point where the child's placement arrangements are being reviewed. That is an important staging post in the child's history of care. These are the most vulnerable children.
	I do not have anything against the London Borough of Hillingdon. I very much accept that it is doing its very best, but it has an enormous burden, particularly with respect to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That issue is not being properly funded by the Government, so the council has my greatest sympathy. I point this example out to noble Lords because it is one where the wishes and feelings of the most vulnerable children, at a very important stage of the care process, are not being recorded and taken into account at the review. If it is not happening at those times, it is clearly not happening at somewhat less important stages for less vulnerable children, when it should be happening. It is not just a question of best practice, it is the only acceptable practice, whereby social workers should take account of children's wishes and feelings at every stage, and make sure that those wishes and feelings are recorded, so that they can be taken into account by other people who have some part in the decision making about the child's placement.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said. This is a vital issue. I supported the amendment in Grand Committee and I support it this evening.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, this amendment seeks to place in the Bill an explicit requirement that whenever the local authority has a duty to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child under Part 3 the Children Act 1989 a written record must be made of those wishes and feelings.
	There is no disagreement of principle here at all, but it is the Government's view that such a requirement is implicit in the statutory duty which already exists to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings when taking decisions that affect the child. The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families in 2000 and related government circulars about the implementation of the Integrated Children's System were issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. Local authorities must act under the provisions of Section 7. The legal basis is already clear. Recording all important information on which decisions are based, including the child's views, is central to good professional practice, as set out by the Integrated Children's System.
	As I said in Grand Committee, where a child is looked after, their social worker must record on the ICS form, which I read out in Grand Committee, the views of the child about their care plan; and if it has not been possible to ascertain those views, the social worker would need to record the reason for this. The social worker must also record—I stress "record", because it is a requirement of the ICS—whether or not it is possible to act on the child's views. Each child's care plan is a living record and the child must be closely involved in planning their own care.
	However, we intend to do more. Our Care Matters White Paper outlined our intention to bring together into one set of regulations, with accompanying statutory guidance, all requirements for care planning and reviewing of cases. This will set out in one coherent set of care planning and reviewing regulations all requirements for practitioners and managers in relation to these core processes. The regulations will be linked to the full implementation of the ICS.
	The new regulations will incorporate most of the requirements in the current regulations, but will also provide the opportunity to address a number of additional issues set out in the Care Matters White Paper, increase the level of scrutiny and oversight of the care plan and improve the participation of children in planning for their own care. These regulations will provide an opportunity to impose a legal requirement that social workers record the views of children about their care. We believe that this detail is more appropriate for secondary legislation but we intend to set out the new requirements in the regulations that follow the Care Matters White Paper.
	As the House is aware, Clause 9 strengthens the functions of independent reviewing officers, who are responsible for scrutinising each looked-after child's care plan. Clause 9 amends the Children Act 1989 to impose a new duty on the IRO to ensure that any ascertained wishes and feelings of the child are given due consideration by the local authority. We envisage that implementing this requirement will involve the IRO meeting the child personally before the review meeting to discuss the care plan. This requirement will also involve scrutiny of the authority's performance of its care planning duties. Any authority would be unable to discharge these duties competently unless it had a robust approach that ensured that its officers ascertained and recorded children's views about the care plan.
	To summarise, the current framework of legislation and statutory guidance already requires the local authority to involve children and to record children's views, or where necessary, record why it has not been possible to establish these. However, future regulatory change will enhance this framework and reinforce the responsibility of the child's social worker for establishing and recording the child's views. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, will the regulations ensure that, as far as possible, where a child's wishes are not complied with, the reason is carefully explained to the child?

Lord Adonis: Absolutely, my Lords. The regulations will do so.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, of course I am pleased to hear that more thought is being given to this issue—albeit not in the Bill. However, I find it strange that there has been no explanation as regards the evaluation of the system, which was undertaken as early as 2004. A draft was received by the department in 2006 and still we have had no indication as to whether the system was regarded as failing. Certainly all the evidence we have had is that it has not been complied with satisfactorily by local authorities—not all local authorities but quite a number of them. Presumably the evaluation should have been published by now and it would show us exactly where the failings are.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I shall be quite frank with the House. I am not familiar with the evaluation to which the noble Baroness refers, although I shall certainly be happy to look at that issue further and come back to her. However, as I said, the statutory requirements on local authorities in this matter are very clear.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may make a further inquiry on this matter. My understanding is that under Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 the court has an obligation— whether it is making a private law order under Section 8, a care order under Section 31 or a supervision order—to consult the child on their wishes in so far as they are ascertainable, bearing in mind the child's age and situation. That is a clear obligation of the court, and failure to do so would be the subject of appeal. However, so far as concerns the obligation of a local authority under Section 17, I accept, and indeed applaud, the fact that great attention has been given to an administrative directive. As I understand it, that could never be the subject of an appeal because it is not a justiciable issue. Nor, as I understand it—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—could it be the subject of an application for judicial review. That is the difference between what is proposed in the amendment—putting something under the sovereign authority of statute law—and what is undoubtedly intended to be an authoritative direction of an administrative nature. Does the Minister agree that my analysis is broadly correct?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Lord is pressing beyond my knowledge for the circumstances in which applications for judicial review can be sought. I cannot answer his specific point about whether it is possible to make an application for judicial review in respect of an alleged failure to observe circulars issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I am not sure that that is what I am asking.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am informed that circulars issued under that section are binding on local authorities. They must act under them, and therefore we believe that the legal basis is strong. However, I am afraid that I cannot answer his specific point about the circumstances in which a judicial review can be sought.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, are we really saying that there is a statutory duty to do everything that I ask for in my amendment and that therefore those who are very concerned about this matter and who certainly convinced me that it was necessary to bring back the amendment have no case at all?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I do not believe that there is a case in this respect because there is a statutory basis. However, what the amendment seeks is implicit in the statutory duty because the requirements on local authorities to record the wishes and feelings of the child are issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and local authorities must act under that section. Therefore, our view is that there is an implicit statutory duty, which we believe meets the needs of the case.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I cannot say that I am 100 per cent satisfied with what I have heard and, under those circumstances, I cannot promise that I will not want to return to the matter. However, in the mean time, perhaps there will be opportunities to have discussions to clear up some of the matters—if it is possible to clear them up.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, if it helps the noble Baroness, I shall certainly look at the issue of the evaluation and reply to her in writing on that before Third Reading, with a copy to other noble Lords.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 9 [Independent reviewing officers]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Clause 9, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
	"(1A) In carrying out his functions in relation to subsection (1)(c), the independent reviewing officer must—
	(a) give information to the child about independent advocacy;(b) where the need for independent advocacy is identified, require the local authority to make arrangements for the provision of independent advocacy for the child.
	(1B) For the purposes of this section—
	"advocacy" means the provision of independent and confidential information, advice, representation and support to a child;
	"independent" means where the person appointed is not connected with the local authority by virtue of being—
	(a) a member of the local authority or any of their committees or sub-committees, whether elected or co-opted;(b) an officer of the local authority employed by the children's services department of that authority; or(c) a spouse or civil partner of any such person.""

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23. The purpose of Amendment No. 22 is to require independent reviewing officers to provide information to children about independent advocacy and, where a need is identified, for the service to require the local authority to provide it. The purpose of Amendment No. 23 is to ensure that local authorities conduct regular assessments to verify the provision of sufficient independent advocacy services.
	We tabled both these amendments because we do not believe that children and young people should have access to independent advocacy only at the point at which something has gone wrong. Better outcomes and potentially long-term cost savings can be achieved if independent advocates are involved, where necessary, to support children and to help them to be involved throughout the decision-making process.
	Perhaps I may say more about Amendment No. 22 first. Under current guidance, the IRO is required to inform the child of his right to make a complaint and, in such circumstances, his right to an advocate. I believe that this is too late. It puts the onus on the child to take action after a decision is made about which he is unhappy, rather than at the time, when he may be able to influence the direction of that decision and thereby perhaps end up with an outcome with which he is much happier. Therefore, we believe that the IRO should inform the child about independent advocacy—what it means, how it can help him and how it is different from the social worker and IRO roles—before each review.
	Following this discussion, and where the child is clear that he wants an advocate or the IRO feels that the child would benefit from one as his views do not correspond with the care plan, the local authority should be required to provide advocacy services to that child. It should be emphasised that not all children will need or want advocacy, but the point that I am trying to make is that they should be given the opportunity to make an informed decision about it rather than simply not have access to it.
	Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 were both tabled in Committee and I am returning to them. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, expressed the Government's view that these proposals were unnecessary in the light of the modifications made in the Bill to the role of the IRO. He said:
	"The role of the IRO is central to ensuring that the voice of the child is heard. Therefore, Clause 11 introduces a specific duty on the IRO to ensure that the wishes and feelings of the child are given due consideration in care planning".
	He went on to say:
	"The Bill extends the responsibilities of IROs to monitor the performance of the local authority's functions in relation to a child's case, ensuring that they effectively oversee the care planning process so that it is fair and reasonable and gives proper weight to the child's wishes and feelings. The IRO will support children's active engagement with the care planning process, ensuring that there is greater scrutiny of the care plan for each child in care and making sure that children and young people are informed about their rights if they consider that they have been treated unfairly".—[Official Report, 17/1/08; col. GC 581.]
	Although I welcome that and the fact that the Government are strengthening the role of the IRO, I do not believe that that enhanced role meets the need for more children to access professional independent advocacy. I say that for three reasons. First, the purpose of independent advocacy is fundamentally different from that of the IRO. The expression of the child's views in the decision-making process by an IRO who is responsible for facilitating its outcomes is quite distinct from the representation of those views by an advocate who is independent of the process. There is a strong argument that, under human rights law, natural justice requires the child to be independently represented in decision-making about his private and family life. As Mr. Justice Munby said:
	"Article 8"—
	that is, of the UNCRC—
	"imposes procedural safeguards which impose on administrative decision-makers whose decisions impinge on private or family life burdens significantly greater than I suspect many of them really appreciate. And the burden may extend in some instances ... not merely to permit representation but even to ensure that parents—and particularly children—are properly represented when decisions fundamental to the children's welfare are being taken".
	In other words, using the analogy of court proceedings, those who are making a judgment about a child's welfare cannot also argue the case.
	The second reason is that IROs cannot practically be expected to enable the necessary participation of the child in the review process. Despite the existing requirement in regulations for the IRO to ensure that the voice of the child is conveyed to the review, children still tell the various children's organisations that they do not feel that they are listened to. One child said of his experience, "I told the IRO that I wanted contact with my sister but that didn't come up at the meeting". Well, it should have come up at the meeting.
	In response to this situation, the Government have stated their intention to introduce a stronger requirement on the IRO to meet with the child before the meeting. The Minister has just reiterated that in response to the last amendment. That is welcome but will not resolve the fundamental conflict in role in that IROs have significant responsibilities in relation to chairing review meetings, which means that they do not have the capacity to give young people the dedicated support necessary to ensure that their views can be clearly represented. Independent advocates are also able to ask challenging questions of the review participants in a way that the IRO could not possibly do from the position of chair of the meeting.
	The third reason is that the remit of the IRO is to act in the best interests of the child. It is possible that they may conclude that what the child wants is contrary to what is in the child's best interests. In that situation, they would not be able to represent the views of the child.
	Professional advocacy is quite different because it is independent of the system and its primary role is to work exclusively with the child to ensure that their views and rights are promoted. An advocate ensures that children understand what is happening to them, helps them to navigate the system, supports them to understand their rights and helps to ensure that those rights are met. As far back as 1997, Sir William Utting concluded in his report People Like Us that looked-after children need independent advocacy as a source of protection and as a means of making their voices heard in an otherwise very difficult system for a young child.
	As we heard in our earlier debates, disabled children placed away from home most urgently need a right to advocacy because they are at least three times more likely to be abused or subjected to demeaning treatment than other children. I was delighted that the Minister in another place, Kevin Brennan, during a hearing of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee on 20 February, agreed with my honourable friend Annette Brooke MP that children with both physical and mental disabilities should have advocates where they need them.
	I emphasise that better decision-making can save money in the end. I urge the Government to think again and to deliver a statutory right to independent advocacy when significant decisions are being made in the lives of looked-after children and not just when they have cause to complain, seizing the opportunity that professional independent advocacy offers to empower young people to participate fully in decisions. It has to be integral to the strategy, which I know the Government have, of improving outcomes for children in the care system. I beg to move.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I support these amendments. My Amendment No. 38 would place a duty on children's homes and fostering agencies to provide access to independent advocacy. The first two amendments, to which the noble Baroness spoke, focus on the decision-making process and on ensuring that there is an advocate available in that process. I declare an interest as a patron of Voice, formerly Voice for the Child in Care, which is a widely used advocacy service.
	In Grand Committee I tabled this amendment and I do so a second time because of a recent meeting held by the All-Party Group for Children on the social care workforce as it affects children. That highlighted to me again how vulnerable these children are. The Government are doing much commendable work in building up the workforce, but unfortunately we start from an extremely low level. For example, we have a great shortage of foster carers, as we have discussed already, and inevitably that means that occasionally the quality of foster care is not as good as we would want it to be—occasionally research points to that—and in children's homes there is a great shortage of residential care workers. Over the years, it has become unattractive employment, which has implications on quality.
	The Government set a target for residential childcare workers in children's homes to attain a national vocational level 3 qualification in childcare, which is approximately equivalent to O-level, but they did not manage to reach it. There is still much to do to ensure adequate quality in the training of and equipment for staff in these settings who work with the most vulnerable children.
	In many areas, particularly London, there is a shortage of social workers. That again has implications for quality because it is difficult to obtain the highest quality when one is just seeking to fill places. If one does not pay people well and does not provide them with the right professional framework, one has to recognise that one is not likely to attract the highest quality. That is no reflection on those who do the work. I take my hat off to the Government for recently increasing funding to social work, but we still have a long way to go and these vulnerable children are in the hands of people who have been neglected themselves. It is important that there is someone there just for the child, just to hear the child's voice, just to be their champion when things do not go right—when they do not necessarily have the right social worker or the right foster carer or the right children's home.
	Under the amendment, there would be visiting advocates in children's homes and fostering agencies. That is very important, which is why I bring it back again. I recall various visits that I have made to a children's home: I spoke to young man about the draughts he experienced in the children's home; another child spoke of one of the showers constantly not working; and another one told of a table that needed to be replaced but it was not seen to. An inspector might pick up such matters, but an advocate will know the child. I ask the Minister how much of an opportunity the independent reviewing officer will have to get to know the children with whom he deals. I know that they are supposed to see them before the review, but can he remind me how often reviews take place and what real opportunity there is for a relationship to be formed? On best practice, Shaftesbury Homes and Aresthusa have a visiting advocate once a fortnight so that they get to know the children. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Judd: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 22, to which I put my name, I hope that the House will forgive me if I draw on my experience in what was probably the most interesting period of my life when I had the privilege to be a director of Oxfam. It may slightly surprise noble Lords that I want to draw on that experience, but I see a direct parallel. We aimed to empower the disempowered. If one goes down that road, it is difficult to avoid a didactic and, in effect, paternalistic approach. It is absolutely essential that the advocacy in which you are involved really advocates the position of the community with which you are working and that you are doing your best to enable them to express themselves and to be heard where it matters. It is up to the professions to get that right. I see a direct parallel. We are about empowering the child, which is why advocacy is so important and professionalism is critical.
	Either we are serious in our commitment to the child, as I have said several times in our deliberations today, or we are not. If we are, I conclude, just as I did in my days with Oxfam, that perhaps one of the most important ways of looking after the interests of the child is effective advocacy. That is where what this amendment talks about is crucial. I am sure that my noble friend will take the amendment seriously and I hope that he can give a convincing response.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and all other noble Lords know that I have great sympathy with these important amendments. The noble Baroness also knows that I am constrained because the Children's Society has calculated that there would be a spending commitment of £3 million and, for the Conservative Party, that is an uncosted spending commitment—although I assure her that we would look at it.
	I had the privilege a few weeks ago of meeting four remarkable young people: Shareen, Charlotte, Daniel and Nadir. They were members of the children in care council from Warwickshire who came to the House. They looked around and we had lunch and thought of a suitable room to have a meeting with them in, so we took them to the shadow Cabinet room with my honourable friend Tim Loughton. We had a wonderful meeting. As you would expect, they were articulate children. We talked about certain aspects of the Bill and, when we came to independent advocacy, Daniel said that he had been pleased to have an advocate provided by Barnardo's. There are just too many times when you are in meetings with professionals who are just talking at you and not really listening to what you had to say. This was a very articulate young man. There is a clear need for professional advocacy to, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, empower the disempowered.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support all these amendments. They take me back a long way, to when I was chair of a juvenile court. Even in those days, one of the Children Acts advocated that children in care, or those who had no parental involvement at all, should always have a friend at their side. Maybe one needs a little more than a friend, but an independent advocate would certainly be essential in so many of the areas where decisions are being made.
	It is quite clear from what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said, and from what we have read in the briefing, that the role of the IRO is absolutely incompatible with being an independent advocate. I totally agree with all the other points made. I am afraid that, even though there is extra money involved, it is pretty essential when you are thinking about the future of children who are frankly going to cost you a lot more than that if you do not help them along the path to a rather different life in the future. I hope than when the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, looks again at the sums involved, she might persuade her colleagues that a rather more positive reaction is needed.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we recognise that advocacy has an important role to play in improving services for looked-after children, ensuring that their voices are heard and their rights protected. The three amendments in this group make particular points about advocacy provision, and I will take them in turn.
	On Amendment No. 23 and its proposed duty to provide independent advocacy services, local authorities are required, under the existing statutory framework set out in Section 26A of the 1989 Children Act, to make arrangements for all looked-after children, as well as other children in need and care leavers, to have access to advocacy services, including assistance by way of representation, to help them make representations about services they receive. This must include, but is not restricted to, the pursuit of complaints.
	Statutory guidance under which local authorities must act when performing these specific duties was published in 2004. It sets out in detail our expectations of how local authorities should provide effective advocacy services. The guidance makes clear that we expect local authorities to have arrangements for providing advocacy services that are separate from their own management and delivery functions, and that they ensure that advocates are not part of the service in respect of which any complaint or representation is being made. Local authorities are free to develop their own models for advocacy services, and many contract out this service to the voluntary sector. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for example, mentioned Voice, which is a small charity providing advocacy for young people in secure settings. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, are patrons of Voice, and it does excellent work in this field. It is one of a number of such organisations.
	Furthermore, as I said in Grand Committee, we see the role of the independent reviewing officer as central to ensuring that the voice of the child is heard. I set out at length in Grand Committee how we are building on this role, both through the Bill and the wider Care Matters reforms, to ensure that each IRO can fulfil their role with credibility.
	The noble Earl asked two specific questions on IROs. The reviews are frequent: they take place after the first 28 days, then after three months and every six months thereafter. On how the IRO will get to know the child with whom they are dealing, they will have a duty to meet the child before every review and will be a named person to ensure continuity. The IRO will support children's active engagement with the care planning process, ensuring that there is greater scrutiny of the care plan for each child in care, and ensuring that children and young people are informed of their rights if they consider themselves to have been treated unfairly.
	However, the provisions in this area are not restricted to the IRO. I have already mentioned independent advocacy services. Equally important on educational issues is the role of the designated teacher in the child's school, who will have a part to play in ensuring that the child is able to participate fully in decisions that affect him or her—in particular, those about their personal education plan. For many children, their class teacher or other member of staff, such as a learning mentor, will also be able to provide support and assistance on a wide range of everyday matters. Other children may choose to turn to their carer, their independent visitor or a relative for advice and help in addressing issues of concern to them. All of these people have different skills that the child can access when they have a need to do so.
	However, as I say, we recognise the valuable role that advocates can play, and expect, through statutory guidance, local authorities to review their advocacy services annually to ensure that compliance with national standards is maintained. This includes seeking regular feedback from children about their experience of the service.
	On Amendment No. 22, the existing guidance for IROs makes it clear that,
	"IROs ... have a role when they meet children to inform them that they have a right to make complaints to the local authority, and of the local authority's responsibility to provide them with an independent Advocate if they wish".
	In addition, it is part of the IRO's functions under the regulations to assist the child in obtaining legal advice if the child wishes to take proceedings under the 1989 Act. The IRO of course has the power to refer the child's case to CAFCASS if he has serious concerns that the child's rights are being infringed. The guidance outlines the relationship between the IRO, the designated complaints officer and advocate, and states:
	"The process of advocacy and complaints can run alongside the IRO's actions in resolving an issue, and it will be good practice for the IRO, the Designated Complaints Officer and the Advocate to agree ... their respective roles"—
	and responsibilities—
	"in trying to resolve a complaint"—
	and how they will communicate with each other. We are updating the guidance to IROs, and we will reinforce the importance of IROs informing children of their right to an advocate to make representations about the service they receive. I hope that that will go some way further to meeting the concerns of the noble Baroness and other noble Lords.
	Finally, Amendment No. 38 seeks to ensure that children and young people receiving or seeking services from a children's home or a fostering agency have access to independent advocacy services and that the arrangements for such services are publicised by placing the duty to do so directly on fostering service providers and children's homes. In practice, the vast majority of children placed in children's homes and all children who receive services from providers of fostering services are looked after, so they already benefit from the statutory framework that I have outlined. The exceptions are those children who are placed in residential special schools by education authorities and children placed in children's homes by health bodies. These latter children will benefit from the new statutory visiting requirement introduced by Clause 17 for their local authorities to arrange for children to be visited throughout their placement. As part of the consideration and assessment of their needs we will expect the local authority representative to consider whether access to advocacy would be beneficial to the child and appropriately to ensure that he and his parents are aware of his entitlement to advocacy support in making representations about the services that he receives.
	I hope that on the basis of those assurances that I have been able to give the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press her amendment.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for his recognition of the work of Voice.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister and other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I have been given some reassurance by the Minister, but I am not entirely happy with what he said because in talking about Amendment No. 22 and the duty of the IRO to give the child information about advocacy, he again talked about advocacy in relation to complaints only. The only thing that gave me some comfort was when he was talking about multi-disciplinary working: the advocate working with the social worker and the IRO. If that works well, it could be that the child might receive some advocacy before he found it necessary to go into the formal complaints process, which is what we are trying to pre-empt by providing greater access to advocacy. It can be much more effective to get things sorted out much earlier than when it is necessary to go through the formal complaints process.
	On Amendment No. 23, the Minister suggested that local authorities already have a duty to provide access to advocacy. However, my amendment refers to,
	"the sufficiency of the provision of independent advocacy services".
	As I understand it, the existing duty is to provide advocacy predominantly in the situation where the child is going through the complaints process, although I was slightly encouraged by what the Minister said about it not being totally restricted to the complaints process. Given that there is not enough advocacy around, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of advocacy interactions with children will be in relation to complaints.
	I understand the difficulty the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, has about the spending commitment we might be making if we pass this amendment because it is difficult to know how much uptake there would be and what the corresponding benefit there would be in savings that might come from better decision-making on behalf of the children. Will the Minister consider commissioning some research taking a particular local authority or group of local authorities where children would be provided with advocacy far ahead of the complaints stage to see what that might produce in savings? The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, Voice and I firmly believe that there would be better decision-making which would save the great cost when placements break down, which always involves the local authority in greater costs. If we had better decision-making, we would have fewer placements breaking down and there would be savings. It would be helpful to have serious research comparing the cost of providing that additional advocacy, finding out how much additional advocacy the young people would request and offsetting that against the cost of placements breaking down because of the lack of advocacy. That would give us some idea of what this sort of provision could cost nationally, if it was rolled out. I understand the difficulty of assessing that economic figure, but I am sure it is not beyond the capability of some clever researchers to give us a reasonable estimate.
	We are hearing from children and from organisations such as Voice how positive the experience can be, so I am a little disappointed that the Minister is still talking about advocacy and access to it in relation to the complaints process only. However, there were two or three little chinks of light in what he had to say, so I am slightly reassured, but I cannot promise not to come back to him at some stage with further requests for advocacy. Will he write to me and consider undertaking some serious research on the matter? In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that Report begins again not before 8.46 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration: Statement of Changes in Rules

Lord Avebury: rose to move, That the Statement, laid before the House on 6 February, be disapproved.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we oppose this statement on a number of counts, but first and foremost because there has been no consultation with any of the stakeholders. The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, the Immigration Advisory Service, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Refugee Children's Consortium and Universities UK—I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in her place—all had valid points to make and their views were ignored in the formulation of this statement. The Minister apologised to ILPA in a letter of 29 February and since then there have been discussions with it, but even though officials appear to have acknowledged the concerns expressed, the only way they could have been accommodated was to withdraw the statement and retable an amended version, and they clearly have not been prepared to do so at such a late stage.
	HC321 brings into force the tier 1 component of the points-based scheme announced by the Home Office in March 2006, and we fully endorse the criticisms made by the JCHR of the tighter conditions for the grant of further leave to remain, which apply not only to those coming here under the new scheme but to highly skilled migrants who came here under the previous arrangements. Those people came here to settle down and they bought houses and placed their children in schools with the legitimate expectation that if they satisfied the conditions specified, they would qualify for settlement at the end of four years. Now, the carpet is being pulled from under their feet, and the retrospective imposition of additional conditions is seen by the JCHR as a fundamental breach of their right to family life. This matter is being tested in the courts as we speak, and it was wrong of the Government to ask your Lordships to approve these changes until that matter had been decided.
	However, our concerns also extend to the general changes that are being made here in dealing with false documents and applicants who previously breached immigration laws. It is to be mandatory to refuse an application for entry clearance or for leave to enter or remain where false representations have been made or false documents submitted whether or not they are material to the application and whether or not they are to the applicant's knowledge, and the same applies to material facts not disclosed.
	On Third Reading of the UK Borders Bill, we moved an amendment to allow mistakes or misunderstandings in an application to be corrected. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that under this system appeals,
	"will not be an opportunity for applicants to patch up failed applications with new evidence".—[Official Report, 23/10/07; col. 995.]
	Thus a clerical error or the wrong document submitted by mistake will lead to mandatory refusal, even where there was no intention to deceive. The applicant can then be prohibited from returning to the UK for one, five or 10 years.
	However, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, confirmed explicitly in an earlier debate that a person whose application for an extension of stay is rejected because of a clerical error or a wrong document would be entitled to have a corrected application considered if it was lodged within 28 days of the expiry of his existing leave. In response to an amendment, the noble Lord said:
	"A 28-day grace period will be included in the Immigration Rules as part of the tier 1 process in March 2008 ... This will allow those who send their applications within 28 days of their leave expiring to continue with their application. That is a very helpful approach on our part, which will probably be welcomed, not least by immigration law practitioners".—[Official Report, 16/10/07; col. 661.]
	He repeated that assurance later, making it crystal clear that the 28-day period would allow a person whose application had been rejected because of an inadvertent clerical error or the submission of the wrong document to put in a new application within 28 days. When I put that to him, he replied:
	"Yes, my Lords, that is what I am saying".—[Official Report, 23/10/07; col. 996.]
	Will the Minister be good enough to point to the passage in the statement that gives effect to those undertakings?
	In the JCHR hearing on the statement, the Minister was asked about the even more serious case of a woman or child who is trafficked into Britain on false documents and subsequently escapes. He said:
	"That is why there has to be an appeal that is attached to these kinds of decisions".
	However, there is no discretion in the rules on false documentation, even for asylum applicants who customarily have to produce travel documents to which they were not lawfully entitled, because obviously a Government who are persecuting them do not want them to escape and tell their story in a free country. Will the Minister explain how any appeal can succeed when the law makes no provision for exceptions in those cases?
	Paragraph 47 imposes catastrophic penalties on an applicant who commits breaches of the immigration laws, including minor infractions of the conditions attached to his leave. I expect that my noble friend Lord Roberts will deal with the retrospectivity of these penalties, which is particularly abhorrent. Apart from that, a mandatory ban on entry for a fixed time in a given set of circumstances is undesirable, and paragraph 320 of the rules already provides adequate powers to deal with persons who had previously obtained leave to enter by deception, or who failed to observe a time limit or any other conditions attached to a previous stay.
	Paragraph 320 provides that such persons are normally to be refused, but allows for discretion so that the punishment can fit the crime. Thus an inadvertent or accidental breach could be overlooked, while deliberate breaches can be treated with appropriate severity. Making exclusion mandatory is to ignore the gravity of the breach so that, for example, a missed attendance for reporting, for whatever reason, or a short delay in advising the BIA of a change of address when a residence condition has been imposed, would mean a one-year ban on re-entry if the person leaves the UK voluntarily at his own expense; a five-year ban if he leaves voluntarily at the expense of the taxpayer; and a 10-year ban if he is deported at the expense of the taxpayer. The European Council is currently looking at a draft directive on returns of illegal third-country nationals and has agreed with the Parliament that the length of the re-entry ban should be no more than five years, except where there is a threat to public policy or to security. There is no mention in that draft of the ability to pay.
	When your Lordships considered Clause 16 of the UK Borders Bill, which allows for the imposition of residence and reporting conditions on any person given limited leave to remain, we had no idea whatever that breaches were to be dealt with in this arbitrary and disproportionate manner. Among those who are to be made subject to the conditions are child asylum seekers, for whom the Refugee Children's Consortium has expressed great concern. The degree of responsibility to be laid on a child, whatever her age, for observing conditions ought not to be equal to that of an adult, still less where the child has been trafficked or smuggled into the UK. However, the same procrustean penalties are to be imposed on children as on adults, and in practice they are more likely to suffer the longer ban of five years because they will be less able to pay the fare back to their country of origin.
	Last week, Amnesty International and Southall Black Sisters published a report on gender-based violence against women with limited leave to remain. The men who rape, mutilate and starve these women also threaten them with penalties under the immigration rules. In the particular case of domestic workers, on whom conditions are being imposed that prohibit a change of employment, the perpetrators are being handed an additional weapon. In the Government's response to the EU Select Committee report on illegal migrants, they said about a proposed EU-wide re-entry ban that,
	"the time limits would be arbitrary in nature and involve considerable administration in monitoring the bans",
	and that to allow a person to escape the ban,
	"simply by paying the costs of the removal would condone the abuse of the control by those who are financially well off, while those without such financial means are excluded".
	Is that not what we are being asked to agree to now? Children, abused women, domestic workers and other vulnerable people without means are going to suffer the five-year ban. There is a threat that students may also be added to the categories of those with limited leave to which these penalties will apply. Even worse, as the thousand Zimbabweans now being threatened with deportation will be subject to a 10-year ban, if any of them is the victim of fresh persecution when they arrive back home, they will be unable to submit a new application. Indeed, without an exception to the ban for any person who establishes a claim to have been persecuted for a convention reason, this statement could well be unlawful.
	The statement is ill considered, arbitrary, inflexible, unnecessary, out of line with the rest of Europe and contrary to recent government policy. It could have serious repercussions on our commitment to ratify the Council of Europe convention on human trafficking and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The sensible thing to do now is to wait until the reviews on the steps that we need to take for those purposes have been completed, so that the carve-outs mentioned by the Minister in his replies to questions from the JCHR can be incorporated into the rules. That would give time for the process of consultation that has been so grievously side-stepped so far. It is not too late for the Minister to say now that he will not proceed with the changes but will further reflect on what has been said with one voice by the many agencies that made their comments after it had been tabled and by your Lordships here this evening. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Statement, laid before the House on 6 February, be disapproved.—(Lord Avebury.)

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in this debate on the changes in the Immigration Rules. Statement HC321, which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wishes to disapprove, will introduce changes to the immigration rules that could cause problems for international students coming to higher education institutions in the UK. I declare my interest as chief executive of Universities UK.
	Although I fully understand the Government's need to crack down on illegal immigration, I have concerns that international students and staff, as highly skilled migrants whom we want to come to the UK and who contribute to the high quality of our higher education system, could be caught up in the unintended consequences of this measure. The general principle behind the position of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is that the changes proposed in HC321 would retrospectively affect people in unfortunate ways, condemn people for errors made by others or for very minor errors and place those who overstayed for brief periods in what could be very difficult positions.
	HC321 requires that an application for entry to the UK as a student must be refused if the applicant has at some point breached UK immigration law. This could include a period of overstaying in the past. Depending on how the person left the UK previously, this effective ban on his or her re-entry might last for up to 10 years from the time they left. As I understand it, any student application under these proposed rules must be refused if it contains any statement or document that is false, whether or not the individual knew of the falsity and whether or not it is relevant to the application. It is not clear from the rules as formulated whether "false" has the meaning of mere inaccuracy, which is one ordinary dictionary meaning, or whether a deliberate fraud must be attempted.
	Universities UK has recent experience of the Home Office applying the immigration rules in unfortunate ways. Last autumn, we became aware that, from 1 September 2007, Border and Immigration Agency caseworkers were operating a policy of automatically refusing all applications from students who had overstayed. This was in contrast to previous practice and appeared to contradict information we had been given in the summer of 2007 by the BIA that students who overstayed for more than 28 days would be automatically refused, but that applications from students who had overstayed fewer than 28 days would be handled with discretion. There was also no communication by the BIA to Universities UK about a change in that policy.
	Many students unwittingly became overstayers because of payment problems, when the BIA payment systems rejected valid credit cards. By the time the students had received notice of their rejected payment, they had inadvertently become overstayers. I emphasise that these students were not illegal migrants seeking to disappear into the UK workforce, but people seeking to maintain their regular immigration status through an application and payment of £295 to the BIA. We also know that they are making good progress in their studies, since all applications have to be supported by their institutions. Considerable distress ensued from this rather over-zealous policy implementation, as students were told to leave the country and had their documentation confiscated. Many of these students were nearing the completion of their qualifications and had invested considerable resources in the UK to come here to study.
	However, it is not all bad news. Following lobbying by Universities UK and the UK Council for International Student Affairs—UKCISA—we were pleased and relieved when, in January 2008, the BIA announced at the joint education taskforce meeting:
	"Applications received within 28 days of the expiry of leave will be considered in the normal way ... those within 6 months in exceptional circumstances, but those outside that period, refused".
	It is also welcome news that the BIA has agreed to work with UKvisas to draw up guidance for entry clearance officers to prevent entry clearance refusals solely on the grounds that students had overstayed and therefore had been refused leave to remain as students and so had to return to their home countries at considerable interruption to their studies. I understand that this guidance has now been issued to entry clearance posts by UKvisas.
	In conclusion, I seek two assurances from the Minister. First, does the position about the BIA's treatment of overstayers, as stated in the JET meeting in January 2008, still hold true, despite the changes we are considering tonight, which were announced on 6 February to this House? Secondly, will the Minister provide for the House a copy of the guidance about overstayers and their treatment that was issued by UKvisas to entry clearance posts around the world? A positive response to these two requests would certainly go some way to reassuring the higher education sector that the Home Office is listening to it on this important matter.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, when we were considering the UK Borders Bill, the measures to introduce the new points-based system must have been considered reasonably uncontroversial as they were left to be introduced on a negative procedure, which would have happened today had the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, not drawn attention to this matter. He has lighted upon a number of issues, which will be germane not only to the statement we are discussing, but possibly to others which will follow as the other tiers are introduced.
	I understand that this statement is primarily about tier 1, which deals with highly skilled migrants who wish to work or become self-employed in the United Kingdom, but those that follow on will take us through the whole gamut of those who wish to come into this country or to stay here, having already arrived. Of course, what will change is the number of points that will have to be achieved, the documentation required and the level of financial support among other requirements. In this process, there will be endless room for error in providing what is required. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has pointed out, it also appears that any fault in the documentation, whether intentional or not, will simply mean failure at once, with little room for appeal or rectification. When we discussed this during the passage of the UK Borders Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
	"The Government believe that the points-based system will provide an adequate remedy for migrants who have made mistakes in their application".—[Official Report, 23/10/07; col. 996.]
	I repeat the words,
	"will provide an adequate remedy".
	I believe that that was a different quote from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, so we can make sure that we throw it back where it came from. Where in the statement on tier 1 is mentioned the possibility of appeal and any guidance about it?
	The question of errors in documentation is particularly serious in terms of applications which involve children, since they cannot be accountable themselves and must rely entirely on their parents or other adults to submit them on their behalf. Like other noble Lords I have received a briefing from the Refugee Children's Consortium, which is concerned that there is a mandatory refusal of a child's application—as indeed there is with an adult's—if any false document or statement has been submitted or made. Effects flowing from that will effectively ban a child's re-entry to the UK, which could even apply later when he or she is an adult. What consultation was undertaken on these changes, particularly with the Refugee Children's Consortium, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has mentioned, other interested bodies? How long was the consultation and when did it finish?
	No one is going to condone or suggest condoning the intentional falsification of documents or false information being provided. The concern lies where the matter is unintentional; there could be a minor administrative error—a tip of the keyboard, perhaps—which may be discovered very shortly after the application has been submitted. Will there be any leeway for genuine changes to be made or will any application be automatically turned down, with a consequent refusal of entry in the future?
	The statement is clear throughout that at the request of the Department of Health application for entry as a doctor in training will not be agreed. Here I declare an interest as a non-executive member of a teaching hospital. This means that no putative non-EU doctor can aspire to train in this country unless he is here already under previous admission criteria. I suppose that is at least a small step forward, considering that at one stage it looked as though non-EU doctors would be heaved out immediately. Is it anticipated that this will be a permanent prohibition or just one to help us over the extraordinary mess that has been made of doctors' training, with a bulge that will have to be ironed out over the next two or three years? There is a certain irony that for many years we were only too happy for overseas doctors to come here to train and to gain experience either to return to their own countries, which benefited from that training, or to remain in this country to work for our health service. Does the bald prohibition in these changes hide consultation with countries such as India and other Commonwealth nations on this matter?
	The points system is now under way. It is therefore important that not only is it clear, but that the explanations are also a model of clarity so that every avenue in the statement is covered. Appeal against refusal, and the process and timescale for it, does not seem to appear. I suggest to the Minister that it should do so on each version of these rules as the tiers are covered. Perhaps he will consider that for future such statements.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, mentioned concessions, but we cannot find such concessions in the order itself. Possibly the Minister can tell us exactly what these concessions are and how he is going to deal with them. Is there a concession regarding transitional arrangements, especially under paragraph 47, which is a very worrying provision. Without transitional arrangements, many people are going to suffer a grave injustice. We need to recognise the human rights implications, particularly on the right to private and family life for those who have established themselves. Given that, what are our obligations under Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights? Is this something to which the Minister can say, "Yes, it has been cleared and we are meeting our obligations under the convention"?
	We see the difference between old paragraph 320 of the Immigration Rules and the present one. It sets out the general grounds for refusing applications for entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom. "General grounds" means simply that the grounds for refusal apply to any application and are not specific to any category or type of application under the rules. Some of the grounds for refusal are mandatory and some discretionary, but new paragraph 47 tightens up the whole system by listing additional mandatory grounds for refusal. These include where an applicant has previously breached the UK's immigration laws by overstaying. If he has overstayed for 28 days or less and has left the UK voluntarily, not at the expense of the Secretary of State, that is all right, but otherwise an overstay of even a day over 28 days could incur a severe penalty. Another ground is breaching a condition attached to the applicant's leave. What happens there? Then there is being an illegal entrant or using deception in an application for entry clearance unless the deception took place more than 10 years ago. Others are someone who left the UK voluntarily and not at the expense of the Secretary of State more than 12 months ago, someone who left the UK but at the expense of the Secretary of State more than five years ago, and someone who was removed or deported more than 10 years ago. All these new regulations will cause a lot of confusion in certain quarters.
	The scheme tries to set out particular behaviours that will trigger a ban and set out the particular circumstances governing the length of the ban. The general intention is that breaches of immigration law should result in a ban on the person returning to the UK for a fixed period in the future. The general intention here is to provide an incentive to those who have breached immigration law to leave voluntarily and at their own expense, in which case their ban is only for 12 months, otherwise the ban will be for between five and 10 years. The one exception is where deception is used, in which case the ban will be for 10 years.
	We on these Benches oppose the bans in principle. It is our position that the current rules are adequate in allowing for breaches of immigration laws to be taken into account in relation to any application to come to the UK. In addition to this position of principle, there are several concerns with the scheme. One of the fundamental problems, as already mentioned, is that there are no transitional arrangements. Furthermore, the scheme will provide an incentive for people to do exactly the opposite of what is intended, an issue to which I shall turn in a moment. It will penalise people who have done what the Home Office wanted by returning home to make entry clearance applications before these changes were published on 6 February or before they became aware of the changes. There was no consultation and so these people are in limbo. They have done what they should have done or were unaware of the changes, and now they find themselves in a difficult predicament. The scheme runs a coach and horses through established jurisprudence on which the Home Office has consistently relied, and continues to rely, relating to people with established family life who are unlawfully present in the UK. The problem is that those who were unaware were caught in this transitional period without any special arrangements being made for them.
	The Minister appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 19 February, where he referred to the importance of sending a "very clear signal" to those who use deception on entry clearance applications. However, these statements by the Minister neither explain nor justify the lack of transitional arrangements. If someone has already done something inadvertently, how can you deter that person from doing it when it has already been done? After they have done it, it is too late to be sending a very clear signal to them. We need clear transitional arrangements by which people can abide.
	Far from giving an incentive for people to leave, the rules provide an incentive for people to remain in the UK, to pursue appeals and judicial reviews, and, ultimately, if unsuccessful, to be come part of a larger problem—those who have gone to ground and disappeared from the scheme. Once a person has committed a breach, however minor, that person no longer has any incentive to comply with immigration laws. With one minor infringement, such as forgetting to report on one occasion or overstaying for a short time beyond 28 days, the ban comes into force. From this point, the person may well reason, "In for a penny, in for a pound. With no transitional arrangements, why should I abide further by these regulations?".
	Those who have returned home will, from 1 April, face a mandatory ban on their return. Neither they nor their advisers could have predicted that they would face such a ban; a ban had not been envisaged when they were advised. If it had, the advice would in many cases have been very different. It is a fundamental injustice that people in this situation should be penalised for having returned to their home country. We need to look again at the arrangements and the rules. As has been mentioned, we know that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and higher courts are already having considerable difficulty in thinking about this order.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this short debate; they have raised some important issues. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who gave me advance warning of a couple of specific issues that she wished to raise. I am conscious that noble Lords have spent quite a lot of time researching what I said on the UK Borders Bill last year and I am grateful to be reminded of my fine words at that time. I hope that nothing I say this evening will run in contradiction.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is always assiduous in these matters. I have a great deal of respect for his general approach to these issues and for the courteous way in which he conducts himself. Generally, that is the best way and is in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. It makes for a more interesting and civilized debate. It is clear that noble Lords feel strongly about the changes we are making to the general grounds for refusal, particularly those that require people who have broken our immigration laws in the past to be, in effect, banned from coming back for a period.
	Before I respond to the detailed questions, it may be helpful if I explain why we propose these changes First, we wish to deter people from breaching our immigration laws—we take that very seriously—and we do that by imposing a clear sanction on those who do so. Secondly, we wish to give illegal migrants an incentive to go home of their own accord rather than wait for the BIA to remove them. That is why the rules say in terms that if you go home voluntarily, and at your own expense, you will be banned for only one year; but if you are removed, you will be banned for 10 years. That is a very clear, plain, straightforward, simple incentive—and that remains the Government's position.
	A number of people have, however, suggested that we will achieve our aims better if we give people who are currently here illegally a chance to leave before the new rules are applied to them. We have listened to their argument and reflected on it, and we agree with them. I can announce that we will not apply the provisions in new paragraph 327B of the Immigration Rules to anyone currently in the United Kingdom who leaves the country voluntarily before 1 October 2008. Those people will be able to apply to come back without being automatically refused under these provisions, although it is possible that they will be refused under other parts of the Immigration Rules.
	I emphasise that that does not mean that those people will automatically be allowed to come back. They will need to meet all the other requirements of the Immigration Rules. The BIA will also, as now, have the discretion to refuse them if they contrive in a significant way to frustrate the Immigration Rules; for example, by contracting a bogus marriage, which we know happens. They will not face a period of automatic refusal under paragraph 327B, however, if they go home after 1 October. That gives those who are currently here illegally a clear incentive to go home and, as I mentioned earlier, it promotes the Government's objectives. We cannot withdraw the Immigration Rules in order to make the change, as I have outlined, since many of them are already in force. The change will therefore take effect as a time-limited concession outside the rules. I hope that noble Lords will find themselves able to support that concession.
	Noble Lords have taken the opportunity to raise a number of issues, and I will go through those in turn. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, started his commentary by asking why we did not consult immigration practitioners before putting forward the initial proposals. It is normally the practice that we would go through fairly rigorous consultation arrangements, but it is not always possible to consult everyone who might have an interest in the subject before changing the Immigration Rules. However, we have subsequently had some extremely valuable meetings with the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, a very respected body, since we proposed our changes, and that dialogue continues to be of value to us.
	The noble Lord asked about appeals. Other questions were also asked about appeals, to which I shall come. In essence, the noble Lord asked how appeals could succeed if refusal is mandatory. It is possible to bring an appeal on human rights grounds if keeping the applicant out would breach their human rights, the right to family life and so on. If they succeeded on appeal, that would lead to them being admitted. The noble Lord asked about our objection to the EU re-entry ban. The main reason for our declining to take part in that instrument was that it is a matter best dealt with by member states, and that is essentially what we are doing with this set of proposals.
	My noble friend Lady Warwick mentioned a number of points, one of which was about false documentation. She asked what we meant by a "false document". We mean a document that is forged or has been altered to give false information. If people submit such documents, our belief is that they should be refused. It will be for the BIA to prove that a document is false, and the standard of proof has to be very high.
	My noble friend asked whether we could confirm that people who apply within 28 days of their leave expiring will be dealt with as normal under the points-based system. The answer to that is simple: yes. That was an undertaking we gave when Section 19 of the UK Borders Act 2007 was before the House; in fact I made it, and plainly so. These rules deliver on that. They do not require a points-based applicant to have existing leave. Consequently, applicants whose leave has expired can be granted as normal under the points-based system; that is what the rules say.
	My noble friend also asked whether we could make available a copy of the guidance on overstayers and place it in the Library. There is no specific guidance on overstayers. The position of overstayers is dealt with in the guidance that covers each individual category of the Immigration Rules—those that cover students and those that cover spouses. That guidance is already in the public domain on the BIA website. To make it easier for my noble friend, I shall ask our officials to provide her with a copy. If other noble Lords want a copy, I shall happily make it available to them.
	My noble friend asked whether the position of student overstayers as announced to the joint education taskforce was still valid. The answer to that is yes: students who overstay up to 28 days will be considered as normal; those who overstay for between 29 days and six months will be considered in exceptional circumstances.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I have already asked the Minister to point to the passage in the statement which states that an application will be considered within 28 days of the expiry of a previous leave to remain. Where does it say that?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot give the precise reference this evening, but I shall ensure that the noble Lord has the references that work.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, repeated the point about consultation. It is worth making it clear that we said in our statement of intent on tier 1, which was published in December last year, that we would use general grounds to refuse those people with a bad immigration history. That has attracted fairly general and widespread support. It is an important point.
	The noble Baroness also asked about the adequacy of the remedy for tier 1 general applicants and the possibility of appeal. There is no appeal for those applying to come to the UK under the points-based system, but a person refused entry can apply for an administrative review of the decision of the entry clearance officer if they believe that an honest mistake has been made. This review will be carried out by an official who is different from the official who made the original decision. So there is a measure of distance between the original decision-maker and an effective review of the case. If people are dissatisfied with the outcome of an administrative review, the possibility of a judicial review remains clear.
	Applications to come to the UK for work or study do not raise the fundamental issues that justify a full right of appeal, as one might expect under the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Section 4 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 removes the full right of appeal for those who apply from abroad to come to the United Kingdom under the points-based system. The legislation will take effect as each points-based system tier rolls out. Appeal rights will be abolished in all the highly skilled subcategories except where the appeal is brought on human rights or race discrimination grounds.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, the administrative review is just a piece of paper in front of a judge; it is not a hearing in any sense. Is that right?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is an administrative review carried out by officers who consider the cases. It is not a judicial process, though, as I have made clear to the noble Lord, if there is a disagreement over the effect of the review, there is a possibility of a judicial review. Perhaps that helps the noble Lord.
	I was asked whether sufficient checks will be in place to ensure that we are making the right decision. The clearer and more specific the requirements, the easier it will be for entry clearance officers and caseworkers to make correct decisions that are unambiguously in accordance with the rules. Overseas, there will be 100 per cent internal review of all refusals prior to their being issued to applicants, and the role of the independent monitor for entry clearance refusals without a right of appeal has been extended to cover all points-based system applications. Our training covers the entire overseas network, which will help to ensure that entry clearance staff understand clearly the changes, how to implement them and manage the quality decisions locally.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, made some points about the health service, doctors and the impact of this measure on those wishing to come to work and train in the United Kingdom. In essence, she was asking why we are doing it. It costs roughly £250,000 to train a doctor up to the point at which they reach specialty training. Because they are competing with international medical graduates from outside Europe, many of our UK-trained medical graduates lose out. The taxpayers' investment in their training can be wasted as a result.
	The noble Baroness said that we deliberately recruited from abroad in the past, and we could ask how we got to this position. For most of its history the NHS has relied on the contribution of doctors who trained outside Europe. International medical graduates have played a valuable role in providing services across the UK, and we appreciate the important contribution that they have made to our health service. The aim has been for the National Health Service to become much more self-sufficient and less dependent on the migration of health care professionals from outside the EEA. The aim is to have NHS services delivered by trained doctors rather than doctors in training.
	As I am sure the noble Baroness will recall, back in 1997 when we came into office, we decided to increase substantially UK medical school places, and as a consequence four new medical training schools were established. Medical school places in England increased from just under 3,800 in that year to nearly 6,500 in 2007 to achieve that greater level of self-sufficiency. More UK graduates, coupled with the high number of international medical graduates means that there has been a large number of applicants for speciality training places. We are grateful for the crucial role played by international doctors in the health service for all of its 60-year history, but nothing we are doing prevents them from working as NHS doctors. We are seeking to control access to post-graduate and speciality training posts only. That does not prevent international medical graduates from working as doctors in any other NHS post. The noble Baroness asked whether the provisions preventing work as a doctor in training will be temporary. That is our intention while we seek to create a more permanent solution to the work-flow problems that led us to impose these conditions.
	I think that I have answered most of the questions, except for the reference sought by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I am grateful to noble Lords for their interest and concern on this issue. As I said at the outset, I realise that it has raised concerns. The amendments to the rules that we have laid before the House represent the latest step in the Government's overhaul of the immigration system—perhaps the most radical overhaul for several decades. The points-based system will enable us to select the migrants that our economy needs, to keep out those whom we do not require and to make more, improved and transparent decisions. While I hear the criticisms of noble Lords, they should appreciate that over time, the points-based system will ensure that there is greater public confidence in how migration is managed. I am sure that it will be widely understood as it is clearly a much more transparent process. Over time, despite some of the difficult adjustments involved, noble Lords will see benefits of these changes in the much greater confidence than there has been in the past in the migration flows into the United Kingdom.
	We value greatly the work that migrants do in the UK. We know that they make a tremendous contribution to the quality and colour of our life. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Motion, having heard my explanation and the responses that I have detailed to the House this evening.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I asked whether the appeal system would be included in the regulations. I do not think that the Minister answered that point.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that I had covered appeals fairly thoroughly. However, I shall reflect further on the noble Baroness's comments and provide her with more background.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very welcome concession that he made at the beginning of his speech but express the reservation that it was not done in another way; that is, by withdrawing the order and then bringing back an alternative set of amendments to the Immigration Rules that would set out the exemption until 1 October 2008 in the order instead of dealing with it in this extra-statutory way outside the rules.
	I take it that the noble Lord was telling us that paragraphs 33 to 39 and 47 and 48 are to be left in the measure but not brought into effect until the date he mentioned, and that nobody would be made to suffer under those paragraphs until the expiry of that period. If that is what he was saying, I certainly welcome it. It would take care of a large part of what my noble friend said about the transitional arrangements because people would be able to make the necessary adjustments to their lives in time. I share the unease of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, as regards what he said about appeals. As I have said twice, there is nothing in the measure which says that a person can appeal. There is a complete blanket prohibition on a person who is guilty of an offence under these paragraphs, whether it was inadvertent or whether, in the case of a child, it was done without his knowledge. One would have liked to see set out in the measure a provision that there could be appeals against refusal for those reasons.
	I share the anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, about students. It is not enough to say that if a person realises he is late and puts in a fresh application within 28 days, it will be heard. There may well be cases where it takes longer than 28 days to do that. That person's whole future and the payments that he has made for his university course may hinge on being able to appeal against the refusal. To say that after 28 days a person has no right whatever to appeal against a refusal when it may have been due to some inadvertent clerical error or mistake in a document will not satisfactorily take into account every case.
	The reason for declining to participate in the EU ban was not because we considered this should be dealt with by member states; that was made perfectly clear in the quotation that I read out. At the time the Home Office made its submission on the EU-wide entry ban it considered that it was improper to have a ban as long as 10 years and that it was perfectly satisfied with the non-mandatory ban in the immigration rules, particularly the one that is being amended this evening.
	I conclude by saying that we have to be satisfied with the concession that the Minister made. We are grateful for it as far as it goes. We hope that as a result of the further discussions with the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association that he mentioned other extra-statutory concessions may be made to take into account the many valid points that it made. But in the meanwhile I shall not press the Motion. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 20.46 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.40 to 8.46 pm.]

Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 14 [Duty of local authority to ensure visits to looked after children and others]:

Baroness Meacher: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Clause 14, page 12, line 31, after "must" insert "—
	(a)"

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. Since debating similar amendments in Committee, I have had a most helpful meeting with the Bill team, whose members assured me that the Minister is committed to dealing with these issues in guidance. Why then, noble Lords might ask, am I bringing this back to the House? The aim of the amendments is to clarify to social services departments that their visitor to a looked-after child should, except in exceptional circumstances, be a person known to the child.
	We know that in going through the process of becoming a looked-after child, a child is very likely to have already been through at least three different workers for administrative reasons. The Minister said in our previous debate that the use of the term "exceptional circumstances" is too strong, and of course I understand why he took that view. Indeed, if we were dealing with less damaged children, I would be inclined to agree with him but, in the context of looked-after children, I ask him to consider most carefully whether in fact the wording is strong enough as it stands.
	For example, if a social worker moves to a different team, I suggest that it should not be automatic that his entire caseload of children is immediately passed to a different social worker; but I understand that this happens routinely. One must think of this group of children, who have been let down by their parents and let down no doubt by a number of different people. Then they have gradually begun to make a relationship with a social worker and, just because of some administrative change, they are let down by yet another person. That is how they will see it; it does not matter what anyone says. That is really the essence of the amendment. We need to think of the child first and of our administrative considerations second. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge the overwhelming importance to looked-after children of continuity of care, and I look forward to his response to the amendment.
	Amendment No. 26 again focuses on the need for continuity but, in this case, the amendment requires that looked-after children who are remanded or sentenced to a period in custody should receive continued support from their social worker before, during and—ideally—after custody. I thank Barnardo's and NCB for their very helpful briefing on the amendment, which is also supported by the Children's Society, Rainer, Voice, Youth Access and NLCAS. I also thank Tim Kent of CAMHS in Tower Hamlets for his help on this and a number of other amendments.
	We talked at length in Committee about the very high risk of children in care being taken into custody, and I certainly do not want to repeat those arguments. I welcome the assurances given by the Minister in Grand Committee which relate to looked-after children who enter custody. I could go through those but will not; it is late at night and people want me to keep this short. Despite those assurances I agreed to move the amendment because, along with Barnardo's, the NCB and others, I believe that the requirement that the visitor be a local authority employee and have the necessary training and qualifications should be in the Bill. That requirement has particular importance for a looked-after child in custody. Also, the welfare and assessment visits cannot properly be carried out by the youth offending team worker, even if he or she is a social worker. That is the contention of the amendment.
	The work done by the National Children's Bureau in 2006 supports that view. The needs of children from care placed in custody are not met. Custodial establishments are often not aware of the child's previous status or what services they might be entitled to on their release from custody. The youth offending team will have case responsibility for those children, but its main function is prevention of reoffending. There are essential functions for a qualified social worker from the local authority to perform while the child or young person is in custody—to assess the child's needs while in custody, to plan how those needs will be met, and, even more particularly, to plan for the child leaving custody and work with the youth offending team to ensure that the child's resettlement needs are met. The welfare of those vulnerable young people will be greatly improved if those good practice requirements are specified in regulations.
	I therefore ask the Minister to give a number of assurances to the House in relation to regulations. First, which children in custody will be entitled to visits from a local authority representative under Clause 14? Secondly, will the regulations specify that within one week of entering custody a looked-after child or care leaver should be visited by his or her social worker, that there will be an assessment of the child's needs, and that an interim care plan will be implemented to meet those needs? Will those procedures apply to children previously accommodated under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989? Thirdly, will the regulations specify arrangements to be made for the youth offending team and social worker to plan resettlement needs? Fourthly, can the Minister commit to revising the Children Act 1989 regulations and guidance, and theFramework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families, in line with those proposals?
	I hope that the Minister will respond positively to our concerns. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I gladly support the amendment. We all need to have it constantly in mind that children in the situations that we are describing and considering desperately seek some kind of secure, stable, ongoing relationships—some kind of continuity. To be impersonally buffeted around, however good the intentions of the people who in effect do the buffeting, can aggravate the situation. Therefore it is terribly important that, wherever possible, the person involved should be known to the child and be someone in whom the child has confidence.
	The question we have to ask ourselves about those in prison is not only whether we are committed to the child, but whether we are committed to the whole process of rehabilitation; that word has come up again. If we are committed to rehabilitation, it is important to have some continuity in relationships outside the institution, not simply to make the child institutionally dependent. Goodness gracious, there is a good deal to be anxious about there; I shall come to that on my amendment later. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, knows more in his little finger about those issues than most of us put together.
	Stable relationships—the continuity of relationships—are absolutely crucial to making a success of the operation. I therefore think that the amendment and the spirit in which it has been moved are designed to strengthen a Bill, which I think we all believe is good and which we welcome, and to help a Minister who is greatly respected on all sides of the House because of his commitment to the cause.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I support these amendments and shall speak also to Amendment No. 28 in my name. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has spoken in the way that he has about the rehabilitation that is at the back of the proposals that I have put forward in my amendment, which I have amended slightly since Grand Committee to try to include the fact that, in order to have continuity, the same care worker should, if possible, be responsible for the same person in custody throughout the period that they are there.
	All of us in this House have been enormously grateful to the Minister for the way that he has corresponded with us, kept us informed of what has been in his mind, and has listened to what we have to say. However, I have to say to him that I remain disappointed that one sentence of his that I referred to in Grand Committee has still not been replied to. My interest in that was heightened by the regulatory impact assessment published on 31 October last year about the Bill, which included statements that:
	"Outcomes for children in care are strikingly poor ... children in care are three times more likely to be subject to a final reprimand or warning or convicted of a crime than other children ... 62% of children enter care because of abuse or neglect, which has a profound impact on a child's development".
	On reading those statements, I felt, hooray, the people responsible for this Bill really understand that of all the young people in prison, those who gave me most concern had come from what purported to be care, but which, in terms of what they had gone through, certainly did not amount to care under the meaning of that word.
	Therefore, I was concerned when, in his letter to us of 3 December, the Minister said:
	"It is important to ensure that young people in custody are safeguarded and protected from harm"—
	he added—
	"but we do not accept that this requires them to be looked after and the state to assume a formal parenting role for them".
	I challenged the Minister in Grand Committee and I have not yet had a response to that challenge. The reason for my concern is exactly what my noble friend Lady Meacher mentioned—that, in custody, the youth offending team responsible for administering what goes on is not responsible for the formal parenting role. Unless someone is put in that role, those from care will not have someone acting for them in that role throughout the detention and training order. That was the purpose of my amendment.
	On 19 December, the Minister wrote again to me about the amendment and said:
	"It is intended that local authorities will be required by regulations to ensure that children who were voluntarily accommodated ... are visited when they lose their looked after status because they cease to be so accommodated when detained in secure training centres, young offender institutions or prisons".
	In other words, regulations are intended to do what you want done. I am sorry, but the history of too many subjects brought up in the Bill, and my experience of looking at what was going on in the young offender estate, did not convince me that regulations were a strong enough requirement on people to do what they ought to be doing. This has come up time and time again.
	While we are very happy with the tone and intention of the Bill, many of us have concerns that there are so many regulations and so many instructions that people simply cannot keep in touch with them. Some things need to be lifted out of the regulatory and instructing environment and put into the statutory environment so that someone can see that they happen. I can think of no one to whom this description applies more than young people in custody denied all the safeguards and parenting, about which we have had so much discussion. Now, unless something is put in place, these young people are likely to be denied the attention when they need it most, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, when they are approaching rehabilitation. Someone must be responsible for seeing that the basics, such as accommodation and employment, are properly covered.
	When I came to the House this morning, I was sorry to discover that, for the third time running, there would be a Statement which was likely to take one hour out of the time available to discuss the Bill. It meant that yet again, in realistic terms, I would be unable to test the opinion of the House on this matter. One thing that I find of considerable interest in the legislation that comes before this House is how much of one Bill is included in another. For that reason, I have tabled my amendment for discussion in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which applies to youth justice. The fact that unfortunate timing and a Statement have prevented me from testing the opinion of the House on this occasion will not stop me trying to do so when we reach the Report stage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. However, it is unfortunate that I should have to press this subject over and over again when I would hope that the Government, in the spirit of some of the things that they have said—although not in that unfortunate sentence of the letter of 3 December—would pick it up as a requirement that they should exercise themselves, and that is why I continue to press this amendment.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, it would be very difficult to argue with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on these amendments. Detained children are particularly vulnerable, and it is very likely that their experience of life will have been marked by abandonment. Reinforcing familiar bonds can be invaluable, which is why having someone known to the child is particularly important. It is also important to have people who are professionally trained to assist at this time. They will obviously be best suited to addressing children's fears and concerns and helping them to readjust to the outside world. These young people need some anchor points.
	I turn to Amendment No. 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I supported it in Grand Committee and was happy to put my name to it again today. Like the noble Lord, I feel that it is hugely frustrating when Statements interfere with the rhythm of a Bill. This is a very important issue which should be addressed to a full House. In order to stop the cycle of many children in care ending up in custody, it is essential that they do not feel abandoned and that their fears and concerns are addressed appropriately.
	In Grand Committee, the Minister stressed that a child who is looked after because he is the subject of a care order does not lose that looked-after status if he enters custody. He argued that local authorities share parental responsibility for that group of children and, like any reasonable parent, should arrange to visit them. Unfortunately, the good practice of which the Minister spoke is often not to be seen, but putting it in statute would make it harder for local authorities to wash their hands of a detained child in need.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches we add our support for all these amendments. We very much welcome the spirit of Clause 14. In Grand Committee, there was lengthy discussion about the value of visitors to looked-after children, and these amendments would ensure that the person responsible for visiting the child would be known to the child. Nothing is worse for a child who, as we have all been saying, often will have come from a very troubled and difficult background than being visited time after time by different people whom he does not know at all. This happens frequently. If the child is to build a relationship of trust with that person it has to be someone whom the child knows and therefore trusts. For those in custody, it is even more important for there to be trust and that the person understands their background and knows what they have gone through. No one could be but moved by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
	Sadly, our discussion on this issue was curtailed in Grand Committee and we did not have a chance to talk about it as much as we might have done. It is obvious that society has frequently neglected its responsibilities to looked-after children—an unfortunate euphemism because very often they have not been looked after. Above all, when in custody they need to be looked-after. We on these Benches have a great deal of sympathy with all that has been said and we support these amendments.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I too support all these amendments. They are absolutely essential for the vulnerable people about whom we are talking. It is essential for the young person in prison to have someone to visit them, to have contact with them and to have a relationship with them, if there is to be any hope for them when they come out of prison. As my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham said, once they are in prison, thought must be given to accommodation for them when they come out and employment and training that will enable them to move into a more profitable way of life for them and for the country.
	There are not many good things about the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill—it has far too much in it—but if it allows my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham to have one more go at having this clause debated fully, with time for everyone to express their views, I shall think more highly of it than I do at the moment.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I also support the amendment. It is one of the more important amendments we have before us. We have a common interest, which I know the Minister shares, to prevent the sad outcome of some looked-after children who are taken into custody and who slide into a way of life which is very bad for them and for society. The question is how best to minimise the risk. This is one element that can be important in that situation. The clause is very firm in imposing a duty on the local authority to ensure that a looked-after child taken into custody is visited by a representative of the authority and is given appropriate advice, support and assistance. I know that may happen now, but it would be good to have it in the Bill, as we are concerned with what may be a watershed in a young person's life.
	The local authority representative should know something about the child, his health, his mental health and other issues which could be relevant to the life of the child in custody and afterwards. It would be wise of us to insist on this approach by the local authority as a means of reducing the problems that we experience with looked-after children who leave custody and come out to very difficult circumstances.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the intention of Clause 14 is to ensure that all looked-after children receive regular visits from a representative of their local authority and have access to advice and support when they need it between visits. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would require the local authority to ensure that the representative of the local authority who visits is known to the child in all but exceptional cases. The Government agree that in most cases it will be desirable that the representative is known to the child and I can reassure the noble Baroness that the guidance that we issue will reflect that. However, it is likely to be difficult in practice for local authorities to meet this requirement for all children when they first become looked after, and there will be times when the social worker who knows the child is simply not available to visit. Illness, holiday and maternity leave are just three examples of circumstances that are hardly exceptional. Equally, we need to recognise the practical realities: staff turnover is also unexceptional. However, I take the noble Baroness's point about social workers who simply move teams within local authorities. I will reflect further on how we can meet that point in statutory guidance—to see that where reasonably practicable local authorities ensure that the representative is known to the child.
	Furthermore, as I explained when I introduced our amendment to this clause, we will make it clear that a representative who visits a looked-after child in custody should be an employee of the local authority children's services department and not, for example, a member of the youth offending team. Again, this is in general a desirable policy. However, in respect of whether or not that person should be a social worker, local authorities may at times wish, or indeed need, to choose a representative who is familiar to a child—for example, an experienced member of the children's services team responsible for the child's case who may not be a registered social worker.
	Conversely, it may be necessary for registered social workers with particular experience, but who have not previously been involved in the child's case, to visit the child, perhaps because the child has requested an urgent visit and the familiar representative is unavailable. In addition, the need may arise for someone with particular specialist skills or experience to visit the child at certain times—for example, in relation to the transition from one setting to another—who may not be known to the child.
	For these reasons, we cannot go as far as the noble Baroness wishes in legislation but I hope that we can go most of the way to meeting her concerns in the guidance that will follow it. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness's point that a transfer of responsibility between staff should not happen merely for administrative reasons or for the convenience of an area.
	I appreciate that the intention behind Amendment No. 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is to guarantee that local authorities provide proper support to children and young people in custody whom they have looked after or who remain in their care. We strongly support many aspects of this amendment; in fact, it duplicates much of the effect of Clause 14. I hope that I can resolve this misunderstanding between us, which I thought I had resolved in Grand Committee. I will have another go at explaining the issue at stake.
	Clause 14 requires the local authority to ensure that visits and access to advice, support and assistance are provided for all children who are looked after. This new duty on local authorities will go beyond those children targeted specifically by the noble Lord's amendment, which is focused solely on children in custody, and require local authorities to visit looked-after children wherever they may be living, whether it be in children's homes, hospitals, residential schools including boarding schools, or custodial settings. I reiterate the commitment that I gave when this amendment was debated in Grand Committee: we will use the power to require the local authority to visit children who have been provided with voluntary accommodation by the authority but who then lose their formal looked-after status because they have been given a custodial sentence by the criminal courts and, as a result, are no longer accommodated by the authority. This will ensure that all the children within the scope of paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed subsection (1) in the noble Lord's amendment will receive visits, whether they are formally in the category of being looked after or not. We will use the regulation-making power in Clause 14, which is cast in exactly the same terms as subsections (4) and (5) in the noble Lord's amendment, to prescribe the frequency of visits, the circumstances in which visits must take place and the functions of the person making the visit.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked whether we shall through statutory guidance ensure that the authority works closely with the youth offending team in planning for a child's resettlement when they leave custody. The policy intent underlying Clause 14 in relation to children in custody is to make sure that services for this vulnerable group of children are effectively co-ordinated so that the children have the necessary support to re-establish themselves in their home area, which will minimise the risk of their going on to commit further offences. The short answer to the noble Baroness's question is: yes, we will seek to ensure that there is that necessary co-ordination. We also intend to revise the Children (Leaving Care) (England) Regulations 2001 to specify that one of the functions of a leaving care personal adviser is to visit the young person whom they support, wherever that young person is living. That will include visiting a care leaver who is in custody.
	The combined effect of the commitment to revise the 2001 regulations, as well as Clause 14 and the regulation-making powers in that clause, will be to impose a duty on the local authority to visit and provide continuing support to all its looked-after children, wherever they may be, and to extend the benefits of that service to young people in custody who are care leavers or children who were looked after at the time they were taken into custody but who no longer have that legal status. I hope that that meets the essential points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord and that they do not feel the need to press this amendment.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that sensitive and helpful response to my questions. I have a small point to raise. The Minister mentioned that sickness and leave are not exceptional circumstances. I suggest that in circumstances that are not exceptional the opinion of the child should be sought. Do you want to see yet another stranger or is it more important to you to wait a week or so for your social worker who is on leave or sick? That is what I am getting at: not just willy-nilly bringing in yet another new person. If there are exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary but, if at all possible, every attempt should be made to achieve that continuity because of the vital importance of trust. There can be trust only if there is continuity; trust is built over time. Nothing is more important to these children than that continuity in an attempt to rebuild trust that has been completely destroyed. I do not think that I explained myself adequately, but I hope that that gets the point across.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I thank the Minister for his response, but we come down to the word "formally". Although "formally" no longer applies to the social services because the formal responsibility for those in custody has passed to someone else, the relationship between the social worker and the person who has gone into custody should surely not change. It should be adjusted to follow the formal responsibility. The state has not relinquished formal responsibility for that person. The state retains it, but in a slightly different form. I wonder whether this is the nub of the statement of 3 December, which I continue to question, which rather implies that, once someone has gone into custody, the state no longer has that responsibility. That is the burden of my contention.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the state does not relinquish it. The state has many hats in these relations as it is in charge of the custody in the first place. In respect of the duty of the local authority, the point that I was making is that those who, because of the nature of their accommodation, were looked after but who lose that status because they go into custody will still be subject to a continuing requirement in respect of visits. That is a requirement on the social services department that is separate from those responsible for custody. I think that the difference between us is narrowing, but I do not know whether it has narrowed entirely. I shall look further at the noble Lord's remarks and I promise to write to him further.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
	Clause 15 [Independent visitors for children looked after by a local authority]:

Baroness Meacher: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Clause 15, page 13, leave out line 8 and insert—
	"(a) a young person becomes 25 or has been assessed as no longer likely to benefit from an independent visitor;"

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, the aim of the amendment is to enable an independent visitor to continue their work until the young person is aged 25 or until the young person has been assessed as no longer likely to benefit from an independent visitor. Clause 14 makes it clear that the independent visitor or the local authority may terminate the appointment at any time. I suggest no change to that. Without this amendment to the clause, however, the appointment would automatically be terminated in every case when the child ceases to be looked after by the local authority, if I have understood this correctly. This latter stipulation concerns me. Is it right that the support of an independent visitor is required by law to end at precisely the point when the young person ceases to be in care and when other supports are also likely to be withdrawn?
	In east London, where I chair a mental health trust that includes a CAMH service, when the child leaves care or ceases to be looked after, he or she is automatically transferred to someone else; there is automatically a double whammy. I understand that this is normal practice in child protection work. At the same time, the young person is likely to move from a foster family or care home to an independent housing facility. I am aware of a young person who, as we speak, is in a psychiatric adult ward. I understand that the traumatic transition from looked-after status and the changes and transitions involved at that time have contributed substantially to his breakdown and admission to an adult ward. Anything that the Government can do to introduce some stability through the transition from looked-after status is surely terribly important. We debated a similar amendment in Committee. Since then, I have discussed the amendment with the Bill team and thank it for its helpful advice.
	The other development since our earlier debate is the Government's own amendment, which gives the Secretary of State a power to promote the well-being of care leavers and, by regulation, to extend the power to other groups of young people under the age of 25. All I propose in the amendment is to add a very small amount of flesh to the bones of the Government's amendment. Independent visitors are paid only their expenses; the Bill team tells me that on average this amounts to some £2,000 a year. I seek the Minister's agreement that, when a young person leaves their home and loses their social worker, if an assessment shows that continuation of the independent visitor's work would be helpful to the young person and if the independent visitor is happy to continue working with the young person—they may not be—the local authority should be able to continue to pay the very small expenses of the independent visitor.
	The whole point of an independent visitor, as I understand it, is to be an anchor for the young person through the traumas of transition and the ups and downs of young adult life. There is little doubt that one of the consequences of failing to provide sufficient anchors for young people who need them is that many turn to crime, with the vast expense involved.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will agree to amend the absolute requirement in Clause 14 that the appointment of an independent visitor must cease,
	"when the child ceases to be looked after by the local authority".
	I know that the Minister wants to do his best to achieve the right outcome for looked-after children and young people; along with everyone else, I have huge respect for him and for the work that he has done on the Bill and in many other arenas of life. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, this is such a sensible amendment that I cannot think that the Minister will reject it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has said, we know that the period of transition already creates problems for many of these young people and that some element of stability—someone whom they can rely on—is vital. They may have built up a relationship of trust with their visitor and, as we said earlier, it is important that there should be someone whom they can call on and whom they know to help them through these difficult days. The amendment is sensible and I very much hope that the Minister can give some hope that it will be incorporated either into regulations or into the Bill.

Lord Judd: My Lords, this is another powerful amendment, on which I hope that my noble friend can again illustrate to the House that the gap is narrowing. Continuity is vital, relationships are vital and stability is vital. Offender rehabilitation or the severely disrupted lives of people who have not yet become offenders—for example, the dangers of vulnerability or the need to put a person on a positive course towards a stable and fulfilling future as a full member of society—must be given priority. For that reason, I applaud this amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who speaks with a great deal of experience and practical knowledge, as well as with a lot of authority. I believe that it is time for our whole approach to be oriented towards the reality that we are dealing with human situations, not administrative situations. The necessary administration must underpin the human priorities, which are key to success.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I spoke in support of this amendment in Grand Committee. The transition stage is crucial and, in a lifetime of uncertainty, help should not be abandoned when it is most needed. I was, however, reassured by the Minister's answer that there is already provision under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which imposes a duty on local authorities to allocate a personal adviser and to keep in touch with all former relevant children until they are 21 years old, and in some cases 25 years old.
	In Grand Committee, I asked the Minister for the number of people aged 18 to 25 who may be eligible under the amendment, but he was unable to give me an answer. I wonder whether he has managed to find that out. If he does not know today, I am more than happy for him to write to me.
	While we are talking about independent visitors, perhaps I may also take this opportunity to ask about mentors. Does the Minister envisage mentoring schemes coming under this clause? I am a huge fan of mentoring because it brings the stability and continuity for which we are searching and it is a constant when other things, such as the professionals involved with a young person in care, change. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, they are the anchors in the young person's life.
	Bolton Lads and Girls Club, with which I used to be very involved, was at the forefront of mentoring many years ago and it has had remarkable success. It is running a scheme training employees of Bolton Council to mentor looked-after children. Rainer is providing the finance and the club is delighted with the progress that is being made. The trouble is that, like all these things, funding is always on a short-term basis. It would be sad if, after establishing good relationships, the scheme had to stop. It would be especially cruel for those young people who, probably more than anyone, need those anchor points in their lives. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, Young Minds, the mental health charity for children and young people, conducted research into mentoring and an overview of the literature. It found that the most effective mentoring was long term and not target focused. Shorter-term work, which focused on getting something done in a young person's life, was not as effective as a longer-term relationship. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, reminded us that more than 60 per cent of young people coming into care do so as a result of neglect or abuse in the family. Many of those children need to learn to love again and they need long-term relationships into their 20s. After all, children on average leave home at the age of 24, so it is not too much to ask for this amendment to be agreed.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am well aware that all good things come from Bolton. I will study with care the mentoring scheme, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. I cannot immediately tell her whether they come under the ambit of Clause 14, but I shall certainly let her know. The number of care leavers who might be eligible for an independent visitor, if it was in their interests, is 5,800. I am sorry that I was not able to have that figure earlier.
	I understand entirely the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about transitions from care, and it is for the reasons she gave that we intend to pilot arrangements for young people to continue to stay with their foster carers up to the age of 21. It is one of a range of policies we have in place to see that there is a much more managed transition from care than was often the case in the past. We are also extending the duty to appoint a personal adviser and keep the pathway plan under regular review for young people who, before they are 25, seek support from their local authority to continue or resume their education or training. This builds on the existing requirements in Section 23C of the Children Act 1989 for local authorities to appoint a personal adviser at least up to the age of 21 for all care leavers. The personal adviser's role is to help the young person make a successful transition to independent living.
	In respect of the specific issue raised by the noble Baroness, there is no reason why a local authority cannot continue to meet the reasonable costs of an independent visitor as part of the pathway plan if the young person and the independent visitor want this. Given the potential role in supporting transition and the important stability that contact with an independent visitor may bring, we would expect a young person to discuss this with their personal adviser and appropriate provision to be made in the pathway plan. I can say to the noble Baroness that we will set out our expectation in revised statutory guidance that the local authority should continue to reimburse the reasonable expenses of the independent visitor where it would benefit the young person as part of the package of support they receive. I hope that the noble Baroness thinks that we are going some way to meet the concerns she has raised.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for, as always, his thoughtful response. At this stage I am willing to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]

Lord Judd: moved Amendment No. 29:
	After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
	"Provision of care for children and young persons convicted of criminal offence
	(1) After section 42 of the Children Act 1989 insert—
	"PART IVADetentionDetention orders
	42A Detention orders
	(1) This section applies where a child or young person (aged up to 20 years) is convicted of a criminal offence and a court makes an order that that child or young person should be detained.
	(2) A local authority must provide suitable premises in which that child or young person can be securely accommodated and appropriate care and support provided.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the provision of suitable premises under subsection (2)."
	(2) In section 27(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58) (remand of persons aged 17 to 20) omit the words—
	(a) ", if the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that a remand centre is available for the reception from the court of persons of his class or description,", and(b) "and, if it has not been so notified, it shall commit him to a prison."
	(3) In section 43(2) of the Prisons Act 1952 (c. 52) (remand centres, detention centres and youth custody centres) omit paragraph (c).
	(4) For section 106 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) substitute—
	"106 Interaction with sentences of detention in a young offender institution
	(1) Where a court passes a sentence of detention in a young offender institution in the case of an offender who is subject to a detention and training order, the sentence shall take effect as follows—
	(a) if the offender has been released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102 above, at the beginning of the day on which it is passed;(b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102.
	(2) Where a court makes a detention and training order in the case of an offender who is subject to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, the order shall take effect as follows—
	(a) if the offender has been released under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release of prisoners), at the beginning of the day on which it is made;(b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released under that Part.
	(3) Subsection (1)(a) above has effect subject to section 105(3)(a) above and subsection (2)(a) above has effect subject to section 116(6)(b) below.
	(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, where at any time an offender is subject concurrently—
	(a) to a detention and training order, and(b) to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, he shall be treated for the purposes of sections 102 to 105 above and of section 98 above (place of detention), Chapter IV of this Part (return to detention) and Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release) as if he were subject only to the one of them that was imposed on the later occasion.
	(5) Nothing in subsection (4) above shall require the offender to be released in respect of either the order or the sentence unless and until he is required to be released in respect of each of them.
	(6) Where, by virtue of any enactment giving a court power to deal with a person in a way in which a court on a previous occasion could have dealt with him, a detention and training order for any term is made in the case of a person who has attained the age of 18, the person shall be treated as if he had been sentenced to detention in a young offender institution for the same term."
	(5) Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life, etc.) is repealed."

Lord Judd: My Lords, in one of those characteristic outbursts of well based indignation with which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, regaled us a few amendments ago—I always find those outbursts very challenging—he spoke of his increasing frustration at the relationships between each piece of legislation and how we have to approach each individually in the absence of anything to resolve the issue of an underlying theme that would govern all legislation in the respective areas. All I can say is that I could not agree with him more. In thanking all noble Lords who have added their names to my amendment, I should say that I shall be urging them to do the same in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill because I am going to do exactly the same there. I will be tabling this amendment again in the context of that Bill.
	We are dealing here not with a theoretical issue but with real, pressing and acute situations and realities that affect the young and society as a whole. I hope I will be forgiven for drawing the attention of noble Lords to the horrific stories that have been coming from the island of Jersey recently. Jersey is not part of our immediate concern, but there are lessons to be learnt about what can go wrong and the vulnerability of young people.
	However, it is not just Jersey. Let us look at ourselves. I picked up the newspaper only today and read that the Chief Inspector of Prisons is actually suggesting that Oakhill Secure Training Centre for young people should be temporarily closed because things have gone so badly wrong and because of what is happening to the young people held in that centre. I do not apologise for repeating what I said in Grand Committee and probably at Second Reading. Since 1990, some 30 children have died in custody, in the care of the state, the self-same state that has signed a convention which states that we have a responsibility for upholding and encouraging the well-being of young people. We have heard that 28 of these deaths were self-inflicted, one was a homicide and one was restraint related. Two of the most recent deaths were in privately-run secure training centres; all the others were in Prison Service accommodation in young offender institutions.
	Relating back to the amendment we have just discussed, in the same period 201 young people aged 18 to 21 have died in custody, including 178 self-inflicted deaths and five homicides. I do not know how we can accept these figures; they are totally appalling in a country which regards itself as civilised. In this context, my amendment is designed to ensure that the young people are not destined to find themselves locked up in conditions which are not only counterproductive but dangerous for them.
	I am, of course, the first to recognise that there is a need to protect the public—we all know this—and that there are some young people who simply have to be detained because they are a threat, a danger, a hazard to the public. But if we really want to look to the interests of the public, the challenge—and the greater the problem the greater the challenge—is to see how we can get down immediately to a programme which is designed to enable these young people to become positive and responsible members of society as distinct from negative, destructive members of society.
	This, of course, ties up with the ongoing continuity of responsibility of the local authorities and the rest, and this is what my amendment is designed to achieve. I have said this before in Grand Committee—and I know that the argument can come back—but you cannot say "never", because if you say "never" there will always be exceptions and what are you going to do about the exceptions? The problem is that if you say "never" there will always be a tendency for the exception to become the rule; it will be the easy option to send people off to the wrong kind of detention. At some point you have to say this is simply not going to happen and we are going to ensure that it does not.
	Other countries have done that. Why cannot we do what others have done? Are we helpless? In terms of penal policy and their responsibility for young people, other countries have found that it makes sense economically and socially to ensure that where young people have to be detained they are invariably detained in special accommodation designed for such young people. We know that in prison too often—not always, thank God—the prevailing ethos is not going to be one which is conducive to rehabilitation and to enabling the young to become responsible citizens.
	I have been over these arguments in more detail in Committee and the rest. I hope my noble friend will be able to say today that the Government are set on a course which will make amendments of this kind unnecessary. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment and it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and support it.
	It has been eight years since the Youth Justice Board took over responsibility for the way in which we lock up 3,000 children in custody in England and Wales. In 2000, the then Chief Inspector of Prisons, now the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who is in his place, recommended removing responsibility for juveniles from the Prison Service altogether and setting up a juvenile secure agency. This at the time was a step too far for the Home Secretary and he chose instead to ask the Youth Justice Board to bring about improvements through a process of commissioning and purchasing secure places from a variety of providers. At that time, 85 per cent were held by the Prison Service in young offender institutions, and it is still the case that those institutions hold the overwhelming majority of children who are in custody. Some progress has been made in improving regimes and raising standards for children held in prison in relation to their health and education—I have seen some excellent examples of what can be done on that score—as well as child protection, but to some extent those improvements are superficial and we need to go further.
	Young offender institutions are, first and foremost, prisons. That is not surprising; the Prison Service is an organisation designed for adults, who are 96 per cent of its clientele, and young offender institutions holding juveniles are managed by area managers with generic responsibility for all prisons. Similarly, Prison Service staff are generally recruited for work in any prison. Inevitably, there is a much stronger emphasis on security, control and the prevention of escape than on child welfare. In October 2007 the Prison Officers Association called for the use of batons to be available in children's prisons, a stark illustration of the cultural gulf between Prison Service culture and a child-centred welfare-based approach, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
	The physical conditions in young offender institutions leave much to be desired. They are designed in a similar way to adult prisons, with children housed in small Spartan cells. Again, the design of the buildings themselves is dominated by the need for security and the prevention of escape rather than meeting welfare needs.
	It is the inescapable conclusion of any analysis of this sort of provision that while the provision of the majority of places for children lies within that adult-dominated organisation in the shape of the Prison Service, the radical change that is really required is simply not going to be possible. The latest Home Office statistics show that 76 per cent of children leaving custody in the first quarter of 2005 reoffended within a year. That is a depressing statistic, and it is more or less the same as the figure for 2000—before the Youth Justice Board embarked on its reforming programme. It is clear to me, sadly, that custody, at least in the way it is currently provided, simply does not work in reducing reoffending, which of course is the Government's primary objective. We are continuing to waste huge amounts of public on locking up children. About £281 million a year, which is 70 per cent of the Youth Justice Board's budget, is spent on custody. Unless radical reforms are implemented, there will be no change to this dismal state of affairs.
	We have a new chair of the Youth Justice Board. Now that the Minister's department shares responsibility for children in custody, as it has become the Department for Children, Schools and Families, he has an opportunity to change the situation. To what can we look forward in the review of youth justice promised by the recently published children's plan? This is an opportunity not to be squandered.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I have also put my name to the amendment, which in many ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said, is complementary to mine. Like all noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the way he listens to points and takes them away. He has worked with us on the Bill so far as he is able. Here, however, I understand that he has come up against the stops; he is not responsible for the justice part of the partnership that we are all talking about.
	I always hesitate to go back to this, but one of the things that frustrated me most when inspecting young offender establishments and secure training centres was that in place after place I came across examples of good practice by good staff who were doing what needed to be done because they understood the young people. What is missing from all this is someone who is responsible and accountable for turning that good practice into common practice. We do not need massive, radical change; we need to ensure that good practice is turned into common practice and that the experience of those who have been looking after young people is used properly.
	The Prison Service is not the place to do that. The Youth Justice Board started off with huge support, because people felt that here at last was an organisation focused on the needs of a particular group and therefore able to exercise them. Somewhere along the way, that initial hope has been dissipated. I hope that the Bill and all the other legislation that is going through, rather than introduce something new, will rejuvenate that Youth Justice Board and its responsibility for young people and re-empower it to do what is right for them, because—heavens above—all the evidence has been produced in amendment after amendment to this Bill and others, and all the experience is there. Surely to goodness, we can be sensible be enough to pick it up and run with it, rather than let it and the young people go by default.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, to repeat a phrase of my noble friend Lord Kingsland, we are most sympathetic to all the arguments deployed in support of the amendment by all those who have moved them or signed them.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I wish I could reply so briefly. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for their passionate commitment to improving the regime for those in custody, particularly young people. Underlying my noble friend's concern is the long-term issue of the use of custody for children. I can best deal with it simply by reading to the House paragraph 6.69 of the recent children's plan, which sets out our long-term ambitions in this area. It states that,
	"we are taking a fundamental look at the way in which the criminal justice system overall is working for young people to ensure we learn from existing good practice and address current concerns. This includes examining what we know about why young people offend, what a more effective approach to prevention would look like, the options available for dealing with children who commit crimes, how we can use the time when young people are in contact with the criminal justice system to reduce re-offending and how best to tackle the most serious offenders. Detailed action on how we will jointly tackle these problems will be set out in next year's Youth Crime Action Plan. We aim to significantly reduce by 2020 the number of young people receiving a conviction, reprimand or final warning for a recordable offence for the first time, with a goal to be set in the Youth Crime Action Plan".
	That plan will be published this summer. I hope that that gives some comfort to noble Lords who seek a statement from me that we have regard to long-term policy trends in this area.
	However, I shall deal with the here and now in respect of custody. There was a major change when the Youth Justice Board assumed responsibility for commissioning and purchasing secure places in April 2000. That was accompanied by the creation of a discrete secure estate for boys and a national placement system to enable optimum use to be made of the secure places available at any time—most crucially, enabling the more vulnerable young people to be placed in establishments suited to their needs.
	Perhaps the biggest single achievement is the progressive development of a discrete estate for girls. Following a commitment in 1999 by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice, in his then role of Home Secretary, all 15 and 16 year-old girls were moved out of Prison Service accommodation by the end of 2003. That was a major step, but we followed it by developing five new special units for 17 year-old girls within the Prison Service estate but entirely separate from adults and young adults. The opening of the last of these facilities, at Foston Hall, Derbyshire in January last year, marked the completion of the separate girls' estate. Inspection reports have repeatedly praised the work of the new units. They are clearly an important step towards creating the secure estate that we want to see.
	However, progress has not stopped. The Youth Justice Board is now concentrating on its next priority for the secure estate, which is getting better provision for 15 and 16 year-old boys who are more vulnerable. A new unit is being developed at Wetherby young offender institution, which is due to open in October. My noble friend Lord Judd rightly reminded us of the need for vision. I believe that we are applying ourselves to a vision for the medium-term future in this area. In respect of ensuring that the quality of the criminal justice estates is better suited to the needs of the young people who are placed in custody, I hope that he will accept that we are at least taking some sensible steps forward.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, will the Minister clarify a little point about the proposals for the children plan in the review? Will it look at all options, including the radical one that was not accepted in 2000, when the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, suggested that children's custody should be taken away from the Prison Service and given to a different organisation with a child-centred focus? Will it be that broad-minded?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am not a direct party to the review, so I am unable to answer the noble Baroness. If there is anything more I can say, I shall come back to her.

Lord Judd: My Lords, the point just made by the noble Baroness is very important. I am sure that my noble friend would have all possible support if he were to pursue it with those who carry mainstream responsibility. It is not an abstract theory, but follows the example of some countries that have successfully taken that road.
	I thank the Minister for his reply, to which I listened carefully. I also thank all the noble Lords who have associated themselves with and spoken to my amendment tonight. I am aware that it was a Duke from the other side of the Pennines from where I live who marched his troops to the top of the hill and then marched them down again. I am always determined to demonstrate from our side of the Pennines that we are made of tougher stuff. It seems that my noble friend has left certain doors ajar if not open. We should be working on that. I hope that when we are discussing these matters at Report stage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill we will get as positive and sensitive a response as we have had from my noble friend. That is terribly important.
	I have a couple of observations to make. First, on the prison estate, we must consider carefully that if we had nothing and were starting from scratch with a purpose-built estate, we would produce what is needed at less cost and more effectively. The trouble is that we are using a lot of money in constantly trying to patch up a system that is not designed for the purpose. At some point we must wrest ourselves free of this treadmill and say that it is insane and that we must have a new strategic approach.
	Secondly, when I served on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we were discussing deaths in custody, we encountered exactly the kind of highly professional, dedicated, imaginative, caring prison officers to whom the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred. They would get angry with us parliamentarians as ask, "What are you trying to get us to do? You are trying to get us to do jobs for which we are not professionally trained or properly equipped in premises that are not right, and are making a bad situation worse. Instead of improving it, we are contributing to the deterioration, and we are very angry about that". They are good people to whom we should listen.
	I spent nine years as honorary president of the YMCA in England. Some of the work that I admired the most, done by a very fine crowd of people who were in the front line of social action, was that going on in prisons and detention centres. The stories that were told to friends in the YMCA, and which I was told when I made visits there, are a challenge to every Member of this House. Some of the experiences that the young people who became offenders had been through were horrific. In some cases it would have been an absolute miracle had they not shown delinquent behaviour of one form or another. That is a challenge to us all.
	Sometimes it is said that it is soft or wet to talk about the social conditioning of these youngsters and their experiences, and that we should be tough with them and then things will come right. All the evidence is that the tough thing to do is to take those realities into account and to recognise that many of these youngsters have never been loved or cared for in their lives. We talked about that in more specific detail at earlier stages of the Bill.
	I welcome my noble friend's endeavour to leave the door ajar. It is right to say that the Minister probably sympathises 99.9 per cent with all we are saying but does not have the deciding influence in some of these key areas. We encourage him to speak in our name in the deliberations to which he is a party. We will work at opening the door that is ajar but at this stage, without, I hope, becoming the Duke of York, I consider that is appropriate to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 31:
	After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
	"Breaks from caring for disabled children
	(1) Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the 1989 Act (provision by local authorities for disabled children) is amended as follows.
	(2) The existing provision becomes sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.
	(3) In that sub-paragraph, after paragraph (b) insert "; and
	(c) to assist individuals who provide care for such children to continue to do so, or to do so more effectively, by giving them breaks from caring."
	(4) After that sub-paragraph insert—
	"(2) The duty imposed by sub-paragraph (1)(c) shall be performed in accordance with regulations made by the appropriate national authority.""

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 57, 58, 60 and 64. These amendments deal with the provision of short breaks for disabled children and their families. They follow our debate on this issue in Grand Committee and are a further response by the Government to concerns expressed by noble Lords. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who has pressed the cause of disabled children and their families over many years in this House and who is deeply sorry that he is unable to be with us this evening.
	Amendment No. 31 adds the provision of short breaks for parents and others caring for disabled children to the range of services that local authorities must provide for families and in doing so puts these services on an express statutory footing. The new duty will ensure that short break services lose their Cinderella status and become an essential local authority service, thereby reflecting the importance attached to them by the families of disabled children.
	The new duty makes it clear that short breaks should not be provided just to those carers struggling to maintain their caring role but to those for whom a break would improve the quality of the care they can offer. Short breaks should not be used just as crisis intervention but should help carers to maintain and improve the quality of care they want to, and can, provide. However, I should make clear for the record that the new duty does not create an individually enforceable right to short breaks.
	It is hard to overemphasise the importance of short breaks to the families of severely disabled children. Without these services many parents would go without any relief from constant caring responsibilities. I am in no doubt that without short break provision, the care population would grow considerably and with it the cost to the taxpayer. But we should also not forget the wider benefits of short break provision beyond relieving parents. Any parent will be able to testify that it is beneficial and healthy for their child to gain positive experiences away from their parents whether it is time spent with another trusted adult, or in leisure or youth work-based activities where disabled children and young people can mix with peers of their own age. Such activities are immensely worthwhile and provide an important means of social development. They reduce the isolation felt by many disabled children and young people and can play an important role in enabling disabled young people to make a successful transition to adulthood. This should be and is our ambition for short break provision.
	The Government have put significant resource behind the provision of short breaks; £359 million will be provided to local authorities in England alongside further funding to healthcare bodies to enable a combined approach over the next three years. We estimate that by 2010-11, local government expenditure on short break provision in England will have doubled and in some areas will have increased by up to five times. This major investment would combine with the proposed new duty to create a significant force for change and would be coupled to high expectations for service transformation. We would use both statutory guidance and regulations to make clear our expectations and requirements. We would envisage laying the first formal requirements on local authorities under the powers in the amendments in 2011.
	As the Minister with responsibility for disabled children, I see this as a decisive moment in improving services for this important group in our society. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on being so positively responsive to the concerns expressed by the House. I also congratulate, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on his persistence and determination to achieve the desired outcome. What will be done to ensure that the short breaks that are offered will be of a sufficiently specific type and quality for the young person concerned? For example, for a child on the autism spectrum, will the short break that is offered be autism-specific? Will it have care from people with the right level of experience, so that the parent can be sure that the young person is in the right sort of care with the right level of understanding? That would give them complete peace of mind while they have a short break from their caring responsibilities.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, this is a very welcome amendment. As the Minister said, it is a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who has campaigned for so long on this issue, and it is a tribute to the Minister for taking on board this very important issue. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I would like some assurance that the short breaks will be appropriate. A year or so ago, I met a group of parents with children across the range of the autism spectrum who were very wary of any sort of respite care. They had come back from it and their children had been so distressed that it almost was not worth having the care. They very much hoped that they might be able to club together to provide their own care, because they understand the children.
	I hate to appear churlish, but the regulations will not be rolled out until 2011. What might happen in the mean time? As these short breaks are essential, surely some provision should be made for the interim. Why the delay? Would it not be worth putting in place a temporary system and adjusting it according to the lessons learnt from the AHDC programme, as the Minister said in his letter of 4 March?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to the new provisions by both noble Baronesses. The reason for specifying 2011 is that for the first two years of the investment that I set out, we are building up pathfinder programmes. We recently announced the 21 short break pathfinder areas, and based on the experience of those areas we will introduce national coverage in short break provision in the third year of the Comprehensive Spending Review, which is 2010-11. It is on the basis of the provision that we are able to make in that third year that the regulations will be framed. So there is a reason for 2011; we are not dragging our feet but until we have seen those pathfinders through, we will not be in a position to know what it is appropriate to specify in the regulations.
	Those pathfinder authorities will pilot and seek to develop a range of different sorts of short break provision meeting the whole spectrum of the needs of parents with disabled children, including those groups mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We are mindful of the fact that there is a wide diversity of needs in the disabled children community, and we want to see how those needs can best be met before we either make the national rollout in 2010-11 or specify the regulations under which all local authorities will then be obliged to act.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Meacher: moved Amendment No. 32:
	After Clause 29, insert the following new Clause—
	"Health assessments and care
	After section 90 of the 1989 Act insert—
	"Health assessments and care
	"90A Health assessments and care
	(1) Where a child is looked after by the local authority the Primary Care Trust ("PCT") or, where there is no relevant PCT, the Health Authority, must co-operate with the local authority in the provision of physical, emotional and mental health assessments and care.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing for physical, emotional and mental health assessments of a child looked after by the local authority.
	(3) Regulations made under this section shall make provision about—
	(a) the qualifications and experience of an individual undertaking a health assessment;(b) the length of time after a child starts to be looked after by a local authority by which a health assessment must take place; and(c) the inclusion of details in the care plan of the arrangements made jointly by the local authority and PCT, or, if there is no PCT, the Health Authority, for the area in which the child is living for the physical, emotional and mental health care of the child.""

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I propose the insertion of two new clauses after Clause 29. I had it in mind to cut my speech down because it is very late, but a lot of people are relying on me to put some points here, so I hope that the House will bear with me. The amendments provide for health assessments and care for looked-after children and young people, and evidence-based therapeutic interventions. I shall focus first on health assessments in Amendment No. 32.
	The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen arrangements between primary care trusts and local authorities to assess and meet the physical, emotional and mental health needs of children in care. The aims are to ensure the provision of those services, and that the practitioner conducting the health assessments has the required qualifications and experience. That is simply not the case at present, I am told. The amendment also aims to ensure that the health assessments take place within a reasonable period after the child enters care. I understand from the Bill team that we have no idea how many of the children have the assessments within a reasonable period. Finally, the amendment provides a clear expectation that appropriate support for children, young people and carers, including therapeutic support or mental health services, will be provided for children who have experienced abuse and neglect and have been assessed as needing that care.
	The amendment is strongly supported by the NSPCC, the Who Cares? Trust, the LGA, the National Children's Bureau and others. They wanted me to emphasise that it reinforces the Care Matters White Paper and other significant government policies, as the Minister will be well aware. The Minister assured the Grand Committee that the Government would fulfil their commitment to place the relevant guidance on health assessments on a statutory footing. He also referred to the statutory authority for such assessments being in Sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004. The Bill team explained to me that a raft of guidance would be produced on these issues.
	The reason for bringing the amendment to the House is that I—along with the NSPCC, the Who Cares? Trust, the LGA, the NCB and others—believe that the current legislation, even with all those assurances, does not ensure that children and young people will receive timely health assessments, including mental health assessments. The amendment would fill the gaps in the legislative framework. The disproportionately poor health outcomes of looked-after children were well rehearsed in Committee and I want to make only one of the points now, which is that 45 per cent of looked-after children and young people aged 5 to 17—27,000 in all—have an emotional or mental health disorder. However, only about a third of those—9,500—receive any support from the child and adolescent mental health services. Ofsted found that only one local authority had a 100 per cent achievement of initial assessments. The poorest performing authority achieves only 48 per cent, but only if those assessments are undertaken can we know the demand for services. Only then will services be provided at a satisfactory level for those children. The amendment is the building block on which there may be some hope at some point of having the services available.
	In relation to the amendment, I hope that the Minister will be willing to give a number of assurances to the House. First, the Staying Safe: Action Plan states that the Government will work,
	"with the Healthcare Commission on measures to hold PCTs to account in providing services for children and young people".
	Will that include measures relating to the health of looked-after children, and could the Minister provide some details of that? Secondly, will issues around the physical, emotional and mental health and well-being of children in care be included in the Government's forthcoming children and young people's health strategy, referred to in the children's plan, and, again, could he provide details? Incidentally, I provided all this information to the Bill team, so I hope that the Minister may have some information available.
	Thirdly, current regulations state only that the medical practitioner carrying out a health assessment must "have regard" to their mental and emotional health. Will the revised regulations under the 1989 Act specifically address the emotional and mental health needs of looked-after children who have been abused?
	Fourthly, and finally, what plans does the Minister have to monitor the implementation of the revised statutory guidance and to assess its impact on the health of looked-after children?
	I acknowledge that the Government are committed to placing guidance on the health of looked-after children, as I have made clear, and I very much welcome the Minister's initiatives on all these issues. The fact remains, however, that the provisions will still be only guidance to which PCTs must have regard. That is my understanding. If that is the case, we know what will happen or, rather, we know what will not happen, from my experience. We believe, therefore, that this amendment would make a substantial difference in reducing the number of looked-after children with ongoing unresolved serious emotional and mental health problems, and would ultimately vastly cut the criminal justice bill.
	I turn briefly to Amendment No. 33, which proposes that where a family court has recommended the provision of evidence-based therapeutic intervention, it should be the duty of the local authority to make such provision. The aim here is to try to ensure that, wherever possible, the appropriate intensive therapeutic work is undertaken at an early stage with the whole family of a child at risk of being taken into care, in order to try to avoid the need for that child to be taken into care.
	Since our earlier debate on this issue, I have had a very helpful meeting with the Bill team—as happened regarding my other amendments—who pointed out that the Government are piloting a number of different therapeutic interventions including, for example, functional family therapy, multisystemic family therapy, multidimensional treatment in foster care—which was developed in Oregon, with very promising results—and several other approaches. In the light of that discussion, I have revised my Committee stage amendment to take full account of the likelihood that, over time, the evidence will clarify those interventions that are most effective in different situations or in relation to different family circumstances.
	The important point, which I hope will persuade the Minister to take this amendment seriously, is that there is now good international evidence in support of therapeutic family interventions. I understand that there is good evidence within the UK of the success of such interventions with young people in the youth justice system. I trust that the Minister will not argue against this amendment on the grounds that we do not yet have the final results of all the evaluations of pilots, particularly bearing in mind, perhaps, the social work practices situation within this legislation. This amendment is carefully worded to take account of the need for flexibility and research findings.
	I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments that I put during our earlier deliberations. I would remind the House only that I have personal experience of the remarkable results for children's health, emotional and mental, of intensive family therapeutic interventions. But far more important than my experience is the international and national evidence of the cost-effectiveness of those interventions.
	I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to both of my amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: My Lords, yet again, the noble Baroness has demonstrated how fortunate we are to have her in our midst. Her practical approach, reasonableness and experience are invaluable assets for us all.
	Perhaps I may make a couple of observations. The first is that the noble Baroness referred to the organisations that have been making representations. All of them without exception said at the outset of our deliberations on the Bill how much they welcomed it. Therefore, they are not at all speaking from a position of hostility to the Bill. They are speaking with a commitment to it and a desire to see it made as effective as possible. I am sure that my noble friend would agree that that increases the responsibility of the Government seriously to consider what their position is.
	Today, on my arrival in the House after the weekend, I saw a letter from the NSPCC, which emphasises some of the points that the noble Baroness made. Perhaps with the leave of the House I may quote from the letter. In doing so, I join the noble Baroness in expressing appreciation to all the officials and staff who have enabled us to complete our deliberations this evening. Whether they were consulted about enabling us to do so is another matter, but we are all very grateful to them. The letter states, as the noble Baroness said:
	"45 per cent of looked after children and young people aged five to 17 are assessed as having an emotional or mental health disorder, compared to 10 per cent of the general child and young person population ... Looked after children and young people exhibit high rates of self-harm and high-risk behaviour, particularly in secure accommodation ... and some studies have shown higher levels of substance misuse ... Two-thirds of all looked after children are reported to have at least one physical health complaint—most commonly eye and/or sight problems, speech and language problems, difficulty in coordination and asthma.
	These figures demonstrate not only the significant physical, emotional and mental health needs of children in care, but also the extent of need that remains unmet".
	I shall quote just once more from the letter:
	"Furthermore, 63 per cent ... of children are taken into care for reasons of abuse or neglect. The negative consequences for their health and development, both in the short and the long term, are well documented. As the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has clearly stated: '[T]aking into account the serious consequences abuse has on the child, the necessity of the intervention and psychotherapeutic treatment is obvious.
	Undetected and untreated abuse and neglect yield devastating results for both the individual and the community ... immediate reporting, intervention and treatment of abused and neglected children is an essential priority of public and social policy'".
	When those carrying front-line responsibility on behalf of society as a whole say these things to us, we must respond, and I am sure that my noble friend will do so when he comes to reply.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I shall comment very briefly on the health assessment needs of children in care. I want to talk mainly about partnerships. I realise that there are a number of tools but the Minister commented on those in Committee, so I will not go into them.
	Ofsted has identified the ongoing monitoring and assessment of the physical and mental health needs of vulnerable groups, including looked-after children, as a weakness within children's services partnerships. There is enormous inconsistency. One local authority reports 100 per cent of children in care receiving an initial health assessment, while the poorest performing authority reports only 48 per cent. Multi-agency working between local authorities, healthcare bodies and others is essential in improving outcomes for children. In some PCTs, there seems to be little clarity about who has responsibility for the health needs of children in care. The Government have already proposed to make guidance statutory for PCTs and that is welcome, but will they guarantee co-operation between local authorities and PCTs, will assessments be carried out by suitably trained and qualified practitioners, and will regulations set out how joint arrangements will be made, recorded and reviewed?
	The new NHS operating framework for England states that PCTs are expected to,
	"ensure that children and young people's health and well-being needs are assessed and that action to address these is included in PCT plans".
	This is most welcome, but what priority is given to emotional and mental health needs when we see as priorities obesity, smoking and teenage pregnancy? Those are all understandable and important but so is physical, emotional and mental health, particularly for vulnerable children and young people.
	Some things need to be stated very precisely in legislation and guidance, and I think that this area of the health of looked-after children is one of those. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for introducing the amendment. This matter cannot be dealt with satisfactorily unless there is good assessment of need in the first place. This particular group of children—not large—could be helped so much by having its exact needs assessed so that appropriate treatment and care can be provided, rather than that being done on assumptions or their needs being neglected. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, there are 60,000 looked-after children in this country: 63 per cent of them were placed in care for reasons of abuse or neglect; an equivalent two-thirds had some kind of physical health problem; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pointed out, 45 per cent of them had mental health problems. Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 places a duty on local health bodies—the PCTs—to improve the health and well-being of these children. They are statutory partners within the children's trusts with a responsibility to co-operate with local authorities. It is clear that that is not working and that the health needs of such children are not being met. Some local authorities have looked-after children nurses, but one gathers that some do not have looked-after children nurses at all and often those nurses cover two or three PCT areas. There is a desperate shortage of such nurses and a desperate need for more.
	Not only are health needs not met for these children, but they are not even identified. The proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in these amendments seek to strengthen the Children Act in this respect. When we talked about this in Grand Committee, the Minister promised that there would be revised guidance so that there would be a statutory duty for the health commissioning bodies as well as the local authorities to act in this way. Will that be strong enough? We know perfectly well that guidance is something that PCTs only have to have regard to. There is a very strong case for having a piece of legislation that says that they must co-operate.
	I want to finish by quoting from a transcript of an interview with a consultant psychiatrist from the child and adolescent mental health services. It says:
	"Provision is very patchy. One of the difficulties relates to the split in funding streams over the last couple of years—half to the health route and half to the social services route. This was based on the government's idea of joint thinking which works well in theory but has been atrocious in practice. This has resulted in Health Services and Social Services not discussing the needs of young people and just setting up very ad hoc patchy services".
	In other words, each has taken their share of the money and not done what they are supposed to do.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lady Meacher in her amendment, I declare an interest as an adviser to the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. At this moment the Sainsbury Centre is focusing on the mental health needs of those in custody. Emerging from that is the fact that the figures mentioned by the noble Baroness of those suffering from these problems while in care are far worse for those in custody. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister, in considering the very great importance of proper assessment and therapeutic treatment, to remember that custody offers not just an opportunity to do those things, but a requirement to carry on with whatever may have been achieved during custody. While acknowledging that forensic mental health services are not nearly as good as they could be, one should take the opportunity gained to assess someone during their time in custody, and it is essential that that is not lost when the person returns to the care from which they came.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support these amendments. We have heard all the facts and figures and they are all horrendous. As my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham has just said, they are far worse for those who end up in prison than for those in care. I am impressed by the range of bodies—the Local Government Association, the NSPCC, a whole range of children's bodies and the associate directors of children's services—that are all coming to the same conclusion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has just said, the physical, mental and emotional needs of these children are not just not identified, they are not being met. It is clearly time that rather more attention was paid to this side of things. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Meacher on her amendments, and wholly support them.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, we fully support the spirit of Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. I was prevented from speaking to the earlier amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on this issue because of the ticking of the clock in Grand Committee and a fierce glare from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley.
	Healthcare assessments, though already obligated to occur every 12 months for children in continuous care, often do not. Information from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, said, shows that in Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, for example, only 48 per cent of children received a health assessment of some kind. Yet, at the other end of the scale, Trafford was able to provide assessments for all of the children in care in its area. The discrepancy goes to show that, although efforts have been made, not enough is being done. What these statistics do not reveal is what kind of assessment is being given. We agree that it is extremely important that assessments focus not only on the physical health of a child but also on their mental health. Thus we strongly support the intention of the amendment.
	Amendment No. 33 fits with our position on early intervention: anything that can be done to prevent children going into long-term care is laudable. If a court has made the recommendation and there is obviously a need, it would be a cruel fate to have this denied because of lack of resources or provision of sufficient family therapy services. Though the training of sufficient workers to provide this therapy in sufficient numbers will be expensive, this is an investment to save the enormous amount of money—some £250,000 in some cases—incurred when a child enters the care system for the long term.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are all agreed that it is vital that we improve the health of looked-after children. We also agree that doing this requires us to improve both the proportion of looked-after children who receive health assessments—both initial and ongoing assessments—covering their physical, emotional and mental heath and the quality and timeliness of these assessments.
	To reinforce the existing legislative framework, we will put revised guidance on promoting the health of looked-after children on a statutory footing for health bodies as well as local authorities, using the powers in Sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004. The revised guidance will be statutory for primary care trusts, strategic health authorities, NHS trusts, NHS foundation trusts and local authorities.
	Responding specifically to the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, as to what this revised guidance will cover, it will cover health assessments for looked-after children, including their physical, mental and emotional health; health plans, including the implementation of these plans through the provision of appropriate health care; the involvement of qualified medical practitioners in health assessments and health reviews; the timescales in which the initial health assessment and reviews must be completed, a particular point that the noble Baroness raised; health promotion; the provision of targeted child and adolescent mental health services for looked-after children, which we know are important for improving their mental health; and the roles and responsibilities of health bodies and local authorities, including, to respond to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, how they should work together to improve the health of looked-after children. I hope that that addresses the noble Baroness's concerns relating to the timeliness of health assessments and reviews, the qualifications of those carrying out the reviews and the involvement of health services.
	The noble Baroness also raised the issue of whether health bodies will have only to "have regard" to this guidance. I can assure her that this does not mean it is in any way optional. Health bodies, when exercising any discretion, and particularly when making decisions about delivery of services, will have to take proper account of the guidance and follow it unless they have good reasons not to do so. Failure to have proper regard to statutory guidance would be a ground for impugning a health body's decision and challenging it thereafter. In the Court of Appeal case of the London Borough of Newham versus Khatun and others, Lord Justice Laws said that,
	"an authority is not entitled to depart from guidance given in a circular issued by central government, to which it is obliged by statute to have regard, merely because it disagrees with it".
	This underlines,
	"what is conventional law, namely that respondents to such a circular must (a) take it into account and (b) if they decide to depart from it, give clear reasons for doing so".
	There are strong duties on health bodies in respect of the guidance that I have set out.
	The revised guidance will be complemented by the new joint strategic needs assessment, the new NHS operating framework for 2008-09 and the national indicator set for local government. For the first time, the NHS operating framework includes keeping children well, improving overall health and reducing health inequalities as one of five priorities for the NHS. The JSNA forms the basis of local authority and PCT commissioning. Statutory guidance on the joint strategic needs assessment states explicitly that it should take particular account of the needs of vulnerable groups such as looked-after children. In addition, from April, the NIS forms will form the basis of all local area agreements and the new local government comprehensive area assessment. They will include indicators on the emotional health of looked-after children, placement stability and the timeliness of care reviews as well as indicators on the education of looked-after children, the proportion of care leavers in education, employment or training at 19 and adoption.
	Improvements to the health of looked-after children will be monitored through our existing data collection systems, the new indicator on the emotional health of looked-after children and the Ofsted-led programme of inspection of services and outcomes for looked-after children. My officials are currently discussing this programme of inspection with Ofsted. I hope that that meets the concern of the noble Baroness in respect of monitoring.
	Finally, on Amendment No. 33, the noble Baroness is right to raise the issue of ensuring that we use the most effective interventions in our work with the most vulnerable children and families. The Care Matters White Paper makes several references to the use of the term "evidence-based interventions" both for families where children are on the edge of care and for carers for looked-after children. The broad definition of such an intervention is that it has been the subject of reliable evaluation, preferably using a randomised control trial. As part of our wider parenting strategy, we are piloting nurse-family partnerships, which are aimed at vulnerable new mothers, and family intervention projects, which are comparing the use of Webster-Stratton and triple P programmes.
	I particularly draw attention to the plans set out in Chapter 2—on page 37—for multisystemic therapy. MST has a strong evidence base in the US and my department is funding 10 pilot sites jointly with the Department of Health. In addition, the Department for Children, Schools and Families intends to support a single pilot of a new MST programme, which has a focus on child abuse and neglect rather than anti-social behaviour, as part of a wider international pilot. We take the noble Baroness's points about evidence-based interventions very seriously in our work with vulnerable children and young people.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. I got a bit lost in the middle and will look carefully tomorrow at what he said. For example, he referred to guidance making reference to the timeframe within which these assessments will take place. I am not sure what that means. I was hoping that there might be some specific time within which these assessments would be undertaken. I do not know whether he can provide any further detail on that between now and Third Reading. However, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 33 to 40 not moved.]
	Clause 37 [Orders, regulations and guidance]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Clause 37, page 27, line 16, leave out "ceases" and insert "and subsections (6) and (7) cease"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Extent]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 42 and 43:
	Clause 40, page 28, line 3, at beginning insert—
	"(1) Subject to subsection (2),"
	Clause 40, page 28, line 3, at end insert—
	"(2) Paragraph 6A of Schedule 1 also extends to Scotland."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 41 [Commencement]:
	[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
	Clause 41, page 28, line 5, leave out "(except section 39 and Schedule 3)"
	Clause 41, page 28, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) The reference in subsection (1) to this Part does not include—
	(a) paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 (which comes into force in accordance with subsection (8)); and(b) section 39 and Schedule 3 (which come into force in accordance with subsections (2) and (3))."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Children looked after by local authorities: supplementary and consequential provisions]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 52:
	Schedule 1, page 29, line 5, at end insert—
	" In section 17(5)(a) of the 1989 Act (facilitation of provision by others of services local authority provide under provisions of Part 3 of that Act)—
	(a) for "the authority have power" substitute "it is a function of the authority"; and(b) for "23" substitute "22A to 22C"."
	Schedule 1, page 29, line 5, at end insert—
	" (1) Section 59 of that Act (accommodation by voluntary organisations) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(aa), for "an appropriate children's home" substitute "a children's home in respect of which a person is registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000".
	(3) In subsection (1A) for "local authority" substitute "voluntary organisation".
	(4) In subsection (2) omit the words from "and" to the end.
	(5) In subsection (3) omit the words from "and" to the end.
	(6) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A) Regulations under subsection (2) or (3) may in particular make provision which (with any necessary modifications) is similar to that which may be made under section 22C by virtue of any of paragraphs 12B, 12E and 12F of Schedule 2."
	(7) For subsection (5) substitute—
	"(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular—
	(a) apply with modifications any provision of section 25A or 25B;(b) make provision which (with any necessary modifications) is similar to any provision which may be made under section 25A, 25B or 26.""
	Schedule 1, page 29, line 6, leave out "the 1989 Act" and insert "that Act"
	Schedule 1, page 29, line 33, leave out "22C(8)(d)" and insert "22C(6)(d)"
	Schedule 1, page 29, line 35, leave out "22C(8)(d)" and insert "22C(6)(d)"
	Schedule 1, page 32, line 36, at end insert—
	"Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36)
	6A In section 26 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (manner in which accommodation is to be provided) for subsection (2)(b)(i) substitute—
	"(i) a local authority in England and Wales could place the child in a placement falling within section 22C(6)(c) of the Children Act 1989;"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Minor and supplementary amendments to the 1989 Act]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 53 to 62:
	Schedule 2, page 36, line 22, at end insert—
	" (1) Section 59 is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1A)—
	(a) for the words "the Secretary of State", in the first place where they occur, substitute "an appropriate national authority"; and(b) for those words in the second place where they occur, substitute "that national authority".
	(3) In subsection (2) for "Secretary of State" substitute "appropriate national authority".
	(4) In subsection (3) for "Secretary of State" substitute "appropriate national authority".
	(5) In subsection (4) for "Secretary of State" substitute "appropriate national authority".
	(6) After subsection (6) add—
	"(7) In this Part "appropriate national authority" means—
	(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State; and(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers."
	In section 62(3) for "Secretary of State" substitute "appropriate national authority"."
	Schedule 2, page 36, line 24, leave out from "containing" to end of line 25 and insert "regulations which fall within subsection (3B) or (3C)"
	Schedule 2, page 36, line 27, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) and insert—
	"( ) For subsection (3) substitute—
	"(3A) An order under section 4(1B) or 17(4) or regulations which fall within subsection (3B) or (3C) shall not be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order or regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(3B) Regulations fall within this subsection if they are the first regulations to be made by the Secretary of State in the exercise of the power conferred by section 23C(5B)(b).
	(3C) Regulations fall within this subsection if they are the first regulations to be made by the Secretary of State in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 2.""
	Schedule 2, page 37, line 3, after "Part 3" insert ", Part 7"
	Schedule 2, page 37, line 7, leave out from "containing" to ", shall" in line 8 and insert "regulations which fall within subsection (4) or (5)"
	Schedule 2, page 37, line 10, after "17(4)" insert "or regulations which fall within subsection (4) or (5)"
	Schedule 2, page 37, line 11, leave out "it" and insert "the statutory instrument containing the order or regulations"
	Schedule 2, page 37, leave out lines 13 to 17 and insert—
	"(4) Regulations fall within this subsection if they are the first regulations to be made by the Welsh Ministers in the exercise of the power conferred by section 23C(5B)(b).
	(5) Regulations fall within this subsection if they are the first regulations to be made by the Welsh Ministers in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 2.""
	Schedule 2, page 37, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2)
	Schedule 2, page 37, line 32, at end insert—
	"In paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 for "Secretary of State" substitute "appropriate national authority"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Repeals]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 63 and 64:
	Schedule 3, page 38, line 9, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "In section 59— 
			  (a) in subsection (2) the words from "and" to the end; 
			  (b) in subsection (3) the words from "and" to the end." 
		
	
	Schedule 3, page 38, line 19, column 2, leave out ", paragraph 17" and insert "—
	
		
			  (a) in paragraph 6(1), the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (b); (b) paragraph 17." 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at 10.36 pm.